Turn on thread page Beta

Reasons for Caucasian dominance. watch

Announcements
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Saudi Arabia has a strong influence in the world, I believe. Apparently they have over $1 trillion invested in the United States (in various companies and interests).

    The States, and eventually the Western World would cripple if the Saudis' decided to one day withdraw all that..
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pradster)
    Saudi Arabia has a strong influence in the world, I believe. Apparently they have over $1 trillion invested in the United States (in various companies and interests).

    The States, and eventually the Western World would cripple if the Saudis' decided to one day withdraw all that..
    The middle east has influence because of their oil supplies. It would not benefit them to cripple the largest user of oil in the world!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I think part of the reason for success may be that the European population was always somewhat more condensed than those elsewhere. So, ideas and technology could spread more quickly than they could in Africa or Asia. Just a broad generalization, on my part.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by psychic_satori)
    I think part of the reason for success may be that the European population was always somewhat more condensed than those elsewhere. So, ideas and technology could spread more quickly than they could in Africa or Asia. Just a broad generalization, on my part.
    Very interesting point
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Golden Maverick)
    The middle east has influence because of their oil supplies. It would not benefit them to cripple the largest user of oil in the world!
    Possibly not, but it does show who has got the real power to bring the world to its knees. The Western world is over-reliant on oil, which is predominantly provided by the East.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawz-)
    Living standards, world influence, life expectancy, political stability,and wealth ... to name a few things I suppose.
    What about higher stress levels, soaring teenage pregnancy, people spending less time with their friends and family due to slavery to their work etc? There are many measures of quality. I spent around a month in India recently and of course there is what would be called a lower "standard" of living. Hot water is relatively limited, streets are not as clean as here, a car along the lines of a Ford Escort is considered luxurious. However, man for man, woman for woman, child for child I would say that Indian people are happier. Naturally happiness is subjective and all too elusive and as such can't be defined. But I would nevertheless say with some confidence that they are happier people in general. I had quite a long chat with a lady who was born out there and is now practising psychology in the UK. In India you simply don't hear of conditions such as depression; people work, earn what they can, enjoy each others' company and live life.

    And another point. Wealth and political influence essentially go hand in hand. Wealth comes from an abundance of natural resources. Unfortunately it's not necessarily those who deserve these two advantages who benefit from them. The Native American was not foolish (in my view) for not building guns (have they really benefited us so much?) However, when white people started to take over they suffered as a result. Ironically, if we're talking about why Caucasians are superior, it was disease they took to the Americas such as Chicken Pox which wiped out many of the Indigenous peoples. Disease and weapons from European colonisers.

    Obviously it's one example. But it's an enduring one. America has been the pivotal reason for the success of "white society" and bearing in mind that until 50 years ago non-white people were hardly treated with the tiniest bit of respect it's not all that surprising is it?

    I think that the measure of "superiority" is flawed and I also think that the political power and wealth which are being taken as measures of success have been gained through dubious methods which would be outlawed nowadays. A classic example would be colonisation.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by englishstudent)
    What about higher stress levels, soaring teenage pregnancy, people spending less time with their friends and family due to slavery to their work etc? There are many measures of quality. I spent around a month in India recently and of course there is what would be called a lower "standard" of living. Hot water is relatively limited, streets are not as clean as here, a car along the lines of a Ford Escort is considered luxurious. However, man for man, woman for woman, child for child I would say that Indian people are happier. Naturally happiness is subjective and all too elusive and as such can't be defined. But I would nevertheless say with some confidence that they are happier people in general. I had quite a long chat with a lady who was born out there and is now practising psychology in the UK. In India you simply don't hear of conditions such as depression; people work, earn what they can, enjoy each others' company and live life.
    With greater control over one's life, comes a greater sense of responsibility. As a result, it isn't that surprising that societies in which individuals have less control over their lives, they would have lower stress levels and fewer instances of depression. When you don't have the power to change your life, you have less to worry about.

    And another point. Wealth and political influence essentially go hand in hand. Wealth comes from an abundance of natural resources.
    It's not just an abundance of natural resources, but the ability or desire to harvest and use those natural resources. Africa has loads of natural resources, but they aren't exactly swimming in wealth.

    Unfortunately it's not necessarily those who deserve these two advantages who benefit from them. The Native American was not foolish (in my view) for not building guns (have they really benefited us so much?)
    Have guns benefitted us? Um, yeah. Just a bit... That is how Europeans subjugated basically all lesser advanced cultures. I mean, it's unfortunate for those on the losing end, but I'm not going to lie and say that I didn't benefit from it.

    However, when white people started to take over they suffered as a result. Ironically, if we're talking about why Caucasians are superior, it was disease they took to the Americas such as Chicken Pox which wiped out many of the Indigenous peoples. Disease and weapons from European colonisers.

    Obviously it's one example. But it's an enduring one. America has been the pivotal reason for the success of "white society" and bearing in mind that until 50 years ago non-white people were hardly treated with the tiniest bit of respect it's not all that surprising is it?
    That's a rather broad generalization to make, though. Northern, and even midwestern America was far different than the south 50 years ago. The things you saw happening in Mississippi or Alabama were not occurring in New York or New Hampshire.

    I think that the measure of "superiority" is flawed and I also think that the political power and wealth which are being taken as measures of success have been gained through dubious methods which would be outlawed nowadays. A classic example would be colonisation.
    But, if we continually judge the past by what is acceptable today, then basically nothing that has ever happened in the world is legitimate. "The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there."
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by psychic_satori)
    I think part of the reason for success may be that the European population was always somewhat more condensed than those elsewhere. So, ideas and technology could spread more quickly than they could in Africa or Asia. Just a broad generalization, on my part.
    To add to that I would argue that the European political situation, with large amounts of relatively medium sized countries, was conducive to development - each country was competing for resources, wealth and their need for development became apparent. Looking at countries like Poland - those who did not develop quickly, with regard to gaining resources, military power, and economic strength were forced out by their larger competitors within Europe. Combined with a reliable climate for population growth (aiding food production and allowing the migration to the cities of the industrial revolution) and close geographical proximity, in the 18th/19th/20th centuries global expansionism became necessary and so began.

    There was very heavy competition within Europe for the whole of the middle ages for resources, developing into empire and imperialism that gave caucasian dominance over the globe, particularly in terms of economic prowess. These initial advantage translated themselves into global power for today - such as within institutions (e.g. UN, WTO, IMF) .
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    I think people here are forgetting something. Until around the 16th century, Europe was not the most technologically or economically advanced part of the world; China was. The "ascendence" of Europeans and decline of everyone else started in the 16th century, and the cause of that should also be found in that time period. And it's not that people in Europe suddenly became white in the 16th century. There are a few causes that I can think of:

    1. Navy. The countries of Europe had were either short on resources or depended on a navy for security. The accidental discovery of the New World provided a greater impetus for countries to create large navies. The technological innovations required for having a navy also helped the economies of those countries. Needless to say, the New World was not truly explored until the 16th century.

    2. Wars. It's a well-known fact that necessity is the mother of all innovation. The amount of wars fought by European powers was unprecedented in the rest of the world. Security needs required the creation of an advanced fighting force. And that required constant advances in tactical efficiency and arms. Those advances were then used to conquer the neighboring people while benefiting Europe. Artillery, the weapon that allowed Europeans to win despite being greatly outnumbered, was not effective until around the 16th-17th centuries.

    3. Nation-states. The concepts of nationhood and nationalism were created in Europe. Countries in the rest of the world were neither capable of fully controlling domestic matters nor had the loyalty of the people. Nationalism led to European men to be willing to die for their country, which resulted in large, well-trained, militaries for the European states. Defining oneself in terms of a single ethnicity also allowed the nation to redirect all its hatred towards other nations, thus greatly decreasing the possibility of civil war and secession movements. It was much harder to play divide and conquer with European countries than with other ones. Coincidentally, the apperance of nationalism can be dated to mid-17th century, which is roughly the point where Western power took off (and the Turks were defeated in their last attempt to expand their holdings in Europe).

    I'm sure there are many other reasons, but the key is not to look at Western characteristics and non-Western ones and see which ones are better, but to look at the change in Western identity that allowed it to dominate. I would argue that change took place around the 16th century. The "whiteness" of Europeans existed long before than.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The Industrial Revolution is no doubt one source of it; with the increased efficiency of farming, people could spend their time on other tasks, which led to rapid increases in technology and living standards that increased even further as old taboos were replaced with rights.

    Britain as the forerunner, was blessed with a weak, decentralized state partly due to Anglo-Saxon customs, less threat from foreign invasion (therefore less need for an army and government to defend itself) and an emphasis on food from fishing rather than collective agriculture (less feudal serfdom). We also had a good work ethic, hatred of theft and injustice from the Christian faith. On top of that, rather than having large numbers of children to maximize the chance of having kids that survive, we had a few well-attended children taught how to survive – a natural evolution amongst peoples in cold climes – smarter and therefore more likely to make the most of the new order.

    (According to Niall Ferguson's "Empire: How Britain Made the Modern World" and sociobiological explanations for Race and Intelligence)

    China and the Indian Brahmin have had access to efficient agriculture, work-ethic and small families for a while, but only recently have they had the ideas of freedom: thank Deng Xiaoping's "Time to prosper" reforms, and British Raj, respectively. Good luck to them.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Just chance. Caucasian- western- power and dominance has only been around for a few hundred years. Wait a few more tens of thousand years and see what things are like then- assuming the human race still exists.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Geordie_in_HK)
    I'll just put my case forward for Europe since that is where all the Yankees and Kangaroo eaters originally came from.

    Europe has the best climate and lots of easily accessible natural resources. Simple really.

    China claims to be the oldest civilisation in the world but has suffered due to its size - therefore keeping control was difficult and also lots of the Emperors were complete b4stards!
    Best climate? For what?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    The Greeks claimed that they had the best climate. They said that the climate of Western Europe was too cold, which created people who were strong but stupid. And the climate of Asia was too hot, which created people who were weak but smart. The former couldn't rule others, while the latter couldn't even rule themselves. The Greeks were nice enough to take care of that problem for both of them.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Ive seen some pretty stupid arguements.

    The most simple explaination is that europeans:

    -Could develope metals in a superior way

    -Expanded in the 14th century to their natural boundries and expanded outside Europe to find new materials.

    - European dominance began as the Islamic world's dominance began to fall.

    - European dominance fell as Russia's and America's rised (WW1)

    - Russia's dominace fell, as china's rised

    White people will no longer be dominate in 20 years.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by psychic_satori)
    With greater control over one's life, comes a greater sense of responsibility. As a result, it isn't that surprising that societies in which individuals have less control over their lives, they would have lower stress levels and fewer instances of depression. When you don't have the power to change your life, you have less to worry about.
    My point was that they have less stress and fewer cases of depression. Now that's a good thing however you see it in my opinion. All I was saying was that this apparent "superiority" should perhaps be measured in different ways.

    (Original post by psychic_satori)
    It's not just an abundance of natural resources, but the ability or desire to harvest and use those natural resources. Africa has loads of natural resources, but they aren't exactly swimming in wealth.
    Especially all the land-locked countries. And the malaria and famine and disease are all very beneficial too I am sure. Then there's the AIDs epedemic ravaging the continent. The world's natural resources are not equally distributed (hence the USA's interest in Saudi oil fields for example).

    (Original post by psychic_satori)
    Have guns benefitted us? Um, yeah. Just a bit... That is how Europeans subjugated basically all lesser advanced cultures. I mean, it's unfortunate for those on the losing end, but I'm not going to lie and say that I didn't benefit from it.
    "Lesser advanced cultures"? Less advanced do you mean or just lesser?

    (Original post by psychic_satori)
    That's a rather broad generalization to make, though. Northern, and even midwestern America was far different than the south 50 years ago. The things you saw happening in Mississippi or Alabama were not occurring in New York or New Hampshire.
    Of course the southern states were worse in their treatment of non-white people - especially African Americans. In fact the same states are still quite backward today in many ways. However, I don't think that it was much of a holiday camp for non-white people anywhere in the USA.

    (Original post by psychic_satori)
    But, if we continually judge the past by what is acceptable today, then basically nothing that has ever happened in the world is legitimate. "The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there."
    That's an interesting point. Bush wages a war on a man who tortures and kills his own people. Yet what did the Europeans who reached the shores of the USA do? They killed people who were in their own homeland. Of course times change and yes, the past is like a foreign country in many ways. It does beg the questions though, when did the rules change and who changed them?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    the whites made all the blacks, all the asians all the latinos into slaves to worship their great western empire. the whites took all their land and all their money. they exploited them. Columbus then went to the US and took all the white wealth theer. then when the non whites finally overcame british rule and wanted their country independanc eback, the brisish withdrew all ££ and people and rescour des from them leaving them with nothing.

    amen
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by magiccarpet)
    the whites made all the blacks, all the asians all the latinos into slaves to worship their great western empire. the whites took all their land and all their money. they exploited them. Columbus then went to the US and took all the white wealth theer. then when the non whites finally overcame british rule and wanted their country independanc eback, the brisish withdrew all ££ and people and rescour des from them leaving them with nothing.

    amen
    You miss the main point. Why were the Europeans able to conquer all those other people in the first place?

    And you got the chronology wrong. The Europeans didn't take over the world before Columbus; they did so 400 years after his death.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Does anyone have any opinions on how different religions have hindered growth in the past?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by englishstudent)
    My point was that they have less stress and fewer cases of depression. Now that's a good thing however you see it in my opinion. All I was saying was that this apparent "superiority" should perhaps be measured in different ways.
    But the reason behind less stress and depression is not because they have a better capability to manage the things that lead to such maladies, but because they possess less control of their lives. It may be nice that they dont have stress, but the reason why they avoid it is not necessarily a happy one.

    "Lesser advanced cultures"? Less advanced do you mean or just lesser?
    Sorry, I originally said "lesser cultures," but worried that it would be misintrepreted as a judgment on cultural validity, rather than advancement. Last minute editting gone awry.

    [QUOTE]Of course the southern states were worse in their treatment of non-white people - especially African Americans. In fact the same states are still quite backward today in many ways. However, I don't think that it was much of a holiday camp for non-white people anywhere in the USA. [QUOTE]
    Actually, you might be surprised by how supportive northerners were of black rights. It was northern pressure that gave attention to the civil rights movement. This isn't to say that there was absolutely no discrimination, especially not by today's standards, but the discrimination was more in line with subtle social snobbery than violent aggressive hatred.

    That's an interesting point. Bush wages a war on a man who tortures and kills his own people. Yet what did the Europeans who reached the shores of the USA do? They killed people who were in their own homeland. Of course times change and yes, the past is like a foreign country in many ways. It does beg the questions though, when did the rules change and who changed them?
    I would say that changes come with the evolution of society. To use your example, as people were exposed more and more the the natives, they began to see them as equals, rather than inferior people. Then, they look at how their actions harm others, and suddenly, they don't approve of what they once did. A key point in your comparison is that the Europeans did not look at the natives as "their own" when they were killing them and pushing them westward. Also, the natives weren't all peaceful tribes. Not that I can blame the warring groups for trying to fend off a bunch of foreigners settling in their homeland, but I just wanted to note that there were two sides to the coin.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Worlds 2nd largest economy is Japan, its not in Europe or the west and certainly not caucasian, its as East as you can get really. Even though its located in the middle of 3 tectonic plates, suffers earthquakes once every minute atleast, most of the country is cobered by mountains, its still the 2nd largest economy. Japan in size is also a lot smaller than most European countries. The West just has a lot of media influence and the advantage that most countries understand their language (english - USA/UK/Canada). Middle east is also very advanced, most of the middle eastern countries are swamped with foreigners. Europeans/indians etc.
 
 
 
Poll
Brexit: Given the chance now, would you vote leave or remain?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.