This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
Why are most white countries rich whilst most non - white countries are poor?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Mathemagicien
Well maybe if Germany hadn't massacred all the Jews in Europe they wouldn't have got bombed. Just a thought.
And here comes Donald Trump with his 'alternative' history.
And here comes Donald Trump with his 'alternative' history.
I actually got that information from the late great Christopher Hitchens from a talk he gave, tell me, which part do you dispute. While I accept that no-one is beyond scrutiny Hitch is a pretty reliable source on historical facts.
China.
Original post by daniel_floyd_
South America is not that poor. There are very successful countries in South America. I'm talking about Chile, Argentina, Peru, Uruguay.
Yet no one wants to immigrate there, meanwhile everyone wants to immigrate to white countries. Doesn't that show that there's a difference between races?
Original post by a1a132
Yet no one wants to immigrate there, meanwhile everyone wants to immigrate to white countries. Doesn't that show that there's a difference between races?
Funny enough, Chile, Argentina and Uruguay are "white countries". Whites are the majority in those countries.
Whites are also the majority in Venezuela and look at the current state of that country.
Also you kept using the argument that "nobody wants to live/move there". Who are these people you're talking too?
Its funny how there are many of these thread- Comparing races. I just don't get understand why people can't let go off the race thing and move on. It's 2017 and yet we all seem to keep going backwards. Firstly, all these so called "white countries" have large number of immigrants. Majority of theses countries get these resources or wealth from non western countries. Talking about resources, African countries are the largest producer of natural resources e.g Congo produces the largest amount of cobalt from which we see in smart devices. Then diamonds and gold- Burundi and other countries. Then crude oil- Qatar. Fruits- mostly Asian countries. Medical professionals- Asian. The reason the so called "non white countries" are "poor" is because there leader don't know how to invest in these resources due to corruption from not only themselves but also western world. Now if we take all these away including IMMIGRANTS and leaders from the non white countries investing wisely, it will be very interesting to see the stats. Majority of these non-white countries are very rich without the western fund but the corrupt leaders benefit from these. These funds are only because of what the white countries get from these non white countries. Be careful what you read on news because only half of it is true unless you educate yourself further.
Original post by joyy_loye
Its funny how there are many of these thread- Comparing races. I just don't get understand why people can't let go off the race thing and move on. It's 2017 and yet we all seem to keep going backwards. Firstly, all these so called "white countries" have large number of immigrants. Majority of theses countries get these resources or wealth from non western countries. Talking about resources, African countries are the largest producer of natural resources e.g Congo produces the largest amount of cobalt from which we see in smart devices. Then diamonds and gold- Burundi and other countries. Then crude oil- Qatar. Fruits- mostly Asian countries. Medical professionals- Asian. The reason the so called "non white countries" are "poor" is because there leader don't know how to invest in these resources due to corruption from not only themselves but also western world. Now if we take all these away including IMMIGRANTS and leaders from the non white countries investing wisely, it will be very interesting to see the stats. Majority of these non-white countries are very rich without the western fund but the corrupt leaders benefit from these. These funds are only because of what the white countries get from these non white countries. Be careful what you read on news because only half of it is true unless you educate yourself further.
Their*
Not to forget majority of smart products, clothes, cars etc are produced in China then sent out to countries...
Original post by Mathemagicien
Americans and Africans didn't take Europeans as slaves because they didn't want to
Highly implausible - Americans and Africans both took slaves from their conquered neighbours.
because they didn't feel the need to invent machinery whose sole purpose is to kill (modern weapons);
These societies like all others developed weapons solely designed to kill.
and because Europeans went and destroyed them first.
This is the only answer. And it needs an explanation.
Original post by chazwomaq
Highly implausible - Americans and Africans both took slaves from their conquered neighbours.
These societies like all others developed weapons solely designed to kill.
This is the only answer. And it needs an explanation.
These societies like all others developed weapons solely designed to kill.
This is the only answer. And it needs an explanation.
He's a professional troll. Don't bother.
1.Probably because most of Asia, all of South America and Africa are insanely corrupt. 2. The countries that are the poorest are the most ethnically diverse places in the world. The average country in Africa can have over 5 official and natively spoken languages. Note that in the developed countries, most people speak the same language. When people in Africa speak a different language, with heavily tribalistic values blocking out any sense or possibility of unity that these countries may have.3.Crime rates in Africa and the Middle East are especially high. The DRC for example has some of the highest rape stats in the world. Without proper governing, comes no order. No one is to blame for the state of undeveloped countries other than the governmens and people that support them
Original post by cbreef
You forget Britain, Germany and Japan were bombed to hell during WW2 but all 3 are in the top 5 economies in the world less than a century later...
I forget which country literally funded the rebuilding of these nations and not the others...
Doesn't ring a bell. It's clearly a race thing, not a geopolitical thing.
So many left-tards tip toeing on ice here.White = caucasian Non white = everyone else (asian, Mediterranean, Black, etc)Not one constructive response yet....Which is disappointing, because I’m honestly curious.Political correctness disabling constructive discussion. Standard these days.
Totally true about the Eastern Europe because of communism. After WWII there was no funds given to i.e. Poland to repair, like there was France and West Germany. They got communism instead, which stunted growth. As for why? Well if you play a game of monopoly you have to think of the west as having started the game a while ago, they have a strangle hold on the game board. It doesn't really matter because now you have the East raising by injecting hundreds of new players into the game.
Totally true about the Eastern Europe because of communism. After WWII there was no funds given to i.e. Poland to repair, like there was France and West Germany. They got communism instead, which stunted growth. As for why? Well if you play a game of monopoly you have to think of the west as having started the game a while ago, they have a strangle hold on the game board. It doesn't really matter because now you have the East raising by injecting hundreds of new players into the game.
Original post by Jamesward191
So many left-tards tip toeing on ice here.White = caucasian Non white = everyone else (asian, Mediterranean, Black, etc)Not one constructive response yet....Which is disappointing, because I’m honestly curious.Political correctness disabling constructive discussion. Standard these days.
Natural resources probably have had the biggest impact. Civilisations that prospered the most have almost always been those with access to horses, which are easily tameable and very useful in both attaining food and winning wars.
Similarly, the reason most native americans were wiped out when the Europeans first came to America was smallpox and other plagues, which had been obtained from domesticated animals through centuries of extremely unhygienic practices. The native americans did not have access to easily domesticable animals like the Europeans did, and thus, when the two sides met, only one suffered because of it.
Emmmm Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Macau, Singapore are developed countries and also non-white countries.
what allowed them to conquer and steal resources though?
Its like saying... "I am more succesful then you because I have a better job" - no... the reason I am more succesful then you is deeper then that, you need to look at the causes of why my job is better then yours.. you need to go deeper in your anaylsis
So you say because they stole resources - ok, well so did every country before the second half of the 20th century.. war, conquering and destruction was the norm for thousands of years prior to the late 20th century.. if you were a people back then, and you had the power to rule another people, you did. Because the sole route to power and wealth was poeople+land. So why were white nations more succesfull at it? What caused white nations to become so dominant and powerful that conquering pretty much the entire rest of the world was possible? That is the actual base cause of why white countries are rich - stealing, conquering, colonalisaition is the manifestation.
---
So the real reasons why white nations (europe) were able to dominate and conquer:
1, they exist in the perfect enviromental position on the plannet. Europe is one of the most firtile, stable and prosperous peices of land, regardless of who lives their. Its seasons lend itself to farming, its lack of extreme weather allows societies to grow without collapse, its wide rather than tall, which means seasons and weather are largely universal across the whole continent, enabling the sharing of agricultural knowledge.. etc.
2, Industrialisation caused by an improved societal model. Various sociological factors came about that lead to a highly innovative society, these range from religion, to implimentation of education, to the sharing of knowledge between nations etc. All came together and mannifestated themselves in Europe being the first nations to industrialise. This was as much of a game-changer as comparing a nation without electrisity to a modern nation with it. It simply put european nations in a different relm of competance and ability at the time, compared to all non-industrialised nations, and enabled them to be dominant.
3, Lack of empires and dominant powers. The most succseful periods of European history have came about when the continent has consisted of a mass of small nations, each competition and fighting for survival. Whilst this led to many brutal wars, it also led to nations being more innovative, more ruthless, developing better techneques for fighting etc. The waring periods prior to colonisation tuned the european nations into efficient machines, capable of mobalising and organising in a way that other more previously stable nations couldn't match.
4, Recent historical bias. Many nations have had periods of dominance.. not just europe. Islamic empires ruled huge parts of the world.. Chinese empire have, Japanes empires have, South america has seen its share of dominant empires, so has africa and the middle east. If you lived during the mongol empire, you'd be asking the same question about how they became so dominant. Its highly likely that within the next few hundred years european-white dominance will fade, and be replaced by a new dominant force (most likely either China or some islamic-congolmorate) - then the period of european dominance will just be seen as another part of history like the rest of the dominant empires.. and we will move on to the next power.
Its like saying... "I am more succesful then you because I have a better job" - no... the reason I am more succesful then you is deeper then that, you need to look at the causes of why my job is better then yours.. you need to go deeper in your anaylsis
So you say because they stole resources - ok, well so did every country before the second half of the 20th century.. war, conquering and destruction was the norm for thousands of years prior to the late 20th century.. if you were a people back then, and you had the power to rule another people, you did. Because the sole route to power and wealth was poeople+land. So why were white nations more succesfull at it? What caused white nations to become so dominant and powerful that conquering pretty much the entire rest of the world was possible? That is the actual base cause of why white countries are rich - stealing, conquering, colonalisaition is the manifestation.
---
So the real reasons why white nations (europe) were able to dominate and conquer:
1, they exist in the perfect enviromental position on the plannet. Europe is one of the most firtile, stable and prosperous peices of land, regardless of who lives their. Its seasons lend itself to farming, its lack of extreme weather allows societies to grow without collapse, its wide rather than tall, which means seasons and weather are largely universal across the whole continent, enabling the sharing of agricultural knowledge.. etc.
2, Industrialisation caused by an improved societal model. Various sociological factors came about that lead to a highly innovative society, these range from religion, to implimentation of education, to the sharing of knowledge between nations etc. All came together and mannifestated themselves in Europe being the first nations to industrialise. This was as much of a game-changer as comparing a nation without electrisity to a modern nation with it. It simply put european nations in a different relm of competance and ability at the time, compared to all non-industrialised nations, and enabled them to be dominant.
3, Lack of empires and dominant powers. The most succseful periods of European history have came about when the continent has consisted of a mass of small nations, each competition and fighting for survival. Whilst this led to many brutal wars, it also led to nations being more innovative, more ruthless, developing better techneques for fighting etc. The waring periods prior to colonisation tuned the european nations into efficient machines, capable of mobalising and organising in a way that other more previously stable nations couldn't match.
4, Recent historical bias. Many nations have had periods of dominance.. not just europe. Islamic empires ruled huge parts of the world.. Chinese empire have, Japanes empires have, South america has seen its share of dominant empires, so has africa and the middle east. If you lived during the mongol empire, you'd be asking the same question about how they became so dominant. Its highly likely that within the next few hundred years european-white dominance will fade, and be replaced by a new dominant force (most likely either China or some islamic-congolmorate) - then the period of european dominance will just be seen as another part of history like the rest of the dominant empires.. and we will move on to the next power.
Original post by fallen_acorns
what allowed them to conquer and steal resources though?
Its like saying... "I am more succesful then you because I have a better job" - no... the reason I am more succesful then you is deeper then that, you need to look at the causes of why my job is better then yours.. you need to go deeper in your anaylsis
So you say because they stole resources - ok, well so did every country before the second half of the 20th century.. war, conquering and destruction was the norm for thousands of years prior to the late 20th century.. if you were a people back then, and you had the power to rule another people, you did. Because the sole route to power and wealth was poeople+land. So why were white nations more succesfull at it? What caused white nations to become so dominant and powerful that conquering pretty much the entire rest of the world was possible? That is the actual base cause of why white countries are rich - stealing, conquering, colonalisaition is the manifestation.
---
So the real reasons why white nations (europe) were able to dominate and conquer:
1, they exist in the perfect enviromental position on the plannet. Europe is one of the most firtile, stable and prosperous peices of land, regardless of who lives their. Its seasons lend itself to farming, its lack of extreme weather allows societies to grow without collapse, its wide rather than tall, which means seasons and weather are largely universal across the whole continent, enabling the sharing of agricultural knowledge.. etc.
2, Industrialisation caused by an improved societal model. Various sociological factors came about that lead to a highly innovative society, these range from religion, to implimentation of education, to the sharing of knowledge between nations etc. All came together and mannifestated themselves in Europe being the first nations to industrialise. This was as much of a game-changer as comparing a nation without electrisity to a modern nation with it. It simply put european nations in a different relm of competance and ability at the time, compared to all non-industrialised nations, and enabled them to be dominant.
3, Lack of empires and dominant powers. The most succseful periods of European history have came about when the continent has consisted of a mass of small nations, each competition and fighting for survival. Whilst this led to many brutal wars, it also led to nations being more innovative, more ruthless, developing better techneques for fighting etc. The waring periods prior to colonisation tuned the european nations into efficient machines, capable of mobalising and organising in a way that other more previously stable nations couldn't match.
4, Recent historical bias. Many nations have had periods of dominance.. not just europe. Islamic empires ruled huge parts of the world.. Chinese empire have, Japanes empires have, South america has seen its share of dominant empires, so has africa and the middle east. If you lived during the mongol empire, you'd be asking the same question about how they became so dominant. Its highly likely that within the next few hundred years european-white dominance will fade, and be replaced by a new dominant force (most likely either China or some islamic-congolmorate) - then the period of european dominance will just be seen as another part of history like the rest of the dominant empires.. and we will move on to the next power.
Its like saying... "I am more succesful then you because I have a better job" - no... the reason I am more succesful then you is deeper then that, you need to look at the causes of why my job is better then yours.. you need to go deeper in your anaylsis
So you say because they stole resources - ok, well so did every country before the second half of the 20th century.. war, conquering and destruction was the norm for thousands of years prior to the late 20th century.. if you were a people back then, and you had the power to rule another people, you did. Because the sole route to power and wealth was poeople+land. So why were white nations more succesfull at it? What caused white nations to become so dominant and powerful that conquering pretty much the entire rest of the world was possible? That is the actual base cause of why white countries are rich - stealing, conquering, colonalisaition is the manifestation.
---
So the real reasons why white nations (europe) were able to dominate and conquer:
1, they exist in the perfect enviromental position on the plannet. Europe is one of the most firtile, stable and prosperous peices of land, regardless of who lives their. Its seasons lend itself to farming, its lack of extreme weather allows societies to grow without collapse, its wide rather than tall, which means seasons and weather are largely universal across the whole continent, enabling the sharing of agricultural knowledge.. etc.
2, Industrialisation caused by an improved societal model. Various sociological factors came about that lead to a highly innovative society, these range from religion, to implimentation of education, to the sharing of knowledge between nations etc. All came together and mannifestated themselves in Europe being the first nations to industrialise. This was as much of a game-changer as comparing a nation without electrisity to a modern nation with it. It simply put european nations in a different relm of competance and ability at the time, compared to all non-industrialised nations, and enabled them to be dominant.
3, Lack of empires and dominant powers. The most succseful periods of European history have came about when the continent has consisted of a mass of small nations, each competition and fighting for survival. Whilst this led to many brutal wars, it also led to nations being more innovative, more ruthless, developing better techneques for fighting etc. The waring periods prior to colonisation tuned the european nations into efficient machines, capable of mobalising and organising in a way that other more previously stable nations couldn't match.
4, Recent historical bias. Many nations have had periods of dominance.. not just europe. Islamic empires ruled huge parts of the world.. Chinese empire have, Japanes empires have, South america has seen its share of dominant empires, so has africa and the middle east. If you lived during the mongol empire, you'd be asking the same question about how they became so dominant. Its highly likely that within the next few hundred years european-white dominance will fade, and be replaced by a new dominant force (most likely either China or some islamic-congolmorate) - then the period of european dominance will just be seen as another part of history like the rest of the dominant empires.. and we will move on to the next power.
Scrolling up the screen, I know you're the poster even before I get to your pic and name. Just from the numbered paras and the 500 words.
Original post by Notoriety
Scrolling up the screen, I know you're the poster even before I get to your pic and name. Just from the numbered paras and the 500 words.
ha! I've been on here so long that the way I like to express things has just become standard now. On here, unlike when I am writing for work or my masters, I just like to let it flow out and write exactly in the manner/structure that I think. (and obviously no spell check)
Latest
Last reply 1 minute ago
Medical Degree Doctor ApprenticeshipLast reply 6 minutes ago
Official: University of Birmingham A100 2024 Entry ApplicantsMedical Schools
1039
Last reply 6 minutes ago
Official University College London Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 7 minutes ago
JK Rowling in ‘arrest me’ challenge over hate crime lawLast reply 15 minutes ago
Official: University of Manchester A106 2024 Entry ApplicantsMedical Schools
1291
Last reply 15 minutes ago
Rishi Sunak pledges to remove benefits for people not taking jobs after 12 monthsLast reply 23 minutes ago
year 13 gyg journal : trying not to become an academic victim 🤡📖Last reply 24 minutes ago
NICS Staff Officer and Deputy Principal recruitment 2022 2023Trending
Last reply 13 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 13 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
