Turn on thread page Beta

Reasons for Caucasian dominance. watch

Announcements
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawz-)
    And other countries did not learn this why?
    Education?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawz-)
    How have the poor gotten poorer?
    relative

    My point wasn't that. It was once you're ahead its easier to stay ahead.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    So wouldnt they be poorer without globalization anyway?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kizdesai)
    relative

    My point wasn't that. It was once you're ahead its easier to stay ahead.
    Do you think a person in a third-world country cares more about absolute wealth or relative wealth?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Woah, i'm being misinterpreted. My point is, that in todays world the reason for western dominance is because the system allows the rich to stay rich.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kizdesai)
    Woah, i'm being misinterpreted. My point is, that in todays world the reason for western dominance is because the system allows the rich to stay rich.
    Is that why Japan and South Korea went from being poor to rich within a generation? And why the likes of Argentina and Chile went from being rich to poor within a generation?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    All four are linked to the USA. Don't you just love them!?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    A friend recommends a book: Ecological Imperialism by Alfred Crosby. Crosby's hypothesis is that Europeans had the hidden advantage of carrying loads of infectious diseases which had a disastrous effect on the rest of the world when they got there.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pradster)
    The Middle East is full of oil - surely it should rank much higher than Europe if you're on that train of thought.
    You might need more than oil to dominate other countries.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kizdesai)
    Does anyone have any opinions on how different religions have hindered growth in the past?
    Yes - In the 1800s China had fallen far behind the West in terms of industrial advancement partly b/c of traditional beliefs which opposed scientific experiments etc etc.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    white people have more sexual encounters
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    This question has troubled me before. Why, when the Conquistadores had the technology to travel around the world, were the Aztecs still using spears? Why when the British army came to conquer Africa were they still using bows and arrows? There never seems to have been black civilisation or empire, and the only non-white empires seem to have kept within their borders such as China. I can only think of the Mongolian Empire being non-white, along with the Arabs, but their empire was based on preying on week societies.

    Have there been any non-white Empires?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    Have there been any non-white Empires?
    Chinese, Mongol, Timurid, Moghul, Abbasid, Umayyad, and of course the Ottoman Empire.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawz-)
    An argument put forward by many white supremacists, as support for the notion that Whites are genetically superior, is grounded in the fact that caucasians hold the majority of the world's wealth and power; that western and white societies are genrally more successful, stable and are better palces to live than their non-caucasian counter-parts.

    I would like to note that I do not agree with this reasoning - that I am suspiscious of the contention that genetics are the reason. However I would be interested to hear from others as to what factors explain this observation if we are to discount genetics.
    I'm going to have a bash at explaining this sociologically.

    In a nutshell and in its simplest form, I will attempt to explain by using Max Weber (he is a dude, you really should read his books) lmao

    *bit of background* Right up until just before our industrial revolution, other civilisations were richer than us measly smelly dirty westeners who were dying of cholera and syphillis and black plague all over the place (I would not have liked to have been around then lol!). Before the tudors, everyone in Western Europe were Roman Catholics untill other Churches and denominations popped up, like the Protestantism, Lutherianism and Calvinism.

    What happened next is what Weber calls 'The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism'.

    In a nutshell this is a new belief model which centred around dedicating all of your working hours and days to making profit (factories went up and urbanisation occured,i.e. industrial revolution). To the Calvanists etc making profit and being successful in business showed God how devout you were. Any profit made was to be pumped back into the business and wasn't to be spent on luxurys - hedonism was a sin. The Calvanists believed in pre-destination, i.e God already has your place for you in Heaven or Hell, but the people didn't know so they lived extremely devout lives in the hope of getting into Heaven.

    So all in all, The Protestant Ethic lead to rationalisation which lead to efficiency which started the Western capitalist society that we know today.

    This is one theory which attempts to explain why Europe/Britian/USA accelarted past the likes of India and China - because the difference is the Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism.

    But other white people who automatically assume they are genetically superior are simply small minded sad people which i can't explain lol
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Chinese, Mongol, Timurid, Moghul, Abbasid, Umayyad, and of course the Ottoman Empire.
    The Chinese Empire didn't seem very imperialistic, the Islamic Empires preyed on weak persian societies (without persia they were nothing) Mongols, I conceded in my earlier post. Timurids as well preyed on a weak, divided Persia. I always thought Ottomans were classed as white.

    It seems great (soi disant) Empires of Egypt, Persia, Greece, Rome and Britain were all white. Other seem to have been fledgling or opportunistic.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    The Chinese Empire didn't seem very imperialistic, the Islamic Empires preyed on weak persian societies (without persia they were nothing) Mongols, I conceded in my earlier post. Timurids as well preyed on a weak, divided Persia. I always thought Ottomans were classed as white.

    It seems great (soi disant) Empires of Egypt, Persia, Greece, Rome and Britain were all white. Other seem to have been fledgling or opportunistic.
    Why would the Ottomans (Turks) be considered white when they are originally from Central Asia?

    And you don't think the Romans, or any of the modern European empires were opportunistic, preying on the weak and attempting to avoid wars with equals?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    And you don't think the Romans, or any of the modern European empires were opportunistic, preying on the weak and attempting to avoid wars with equals?
    Hmm, true. Although the Greeks, Persians, Romans and Egyptians did have numerous war between each other. These empires seem to have been more technologically advanced and with more of (at least a façade of civilisation) The Islamic and Timurid empires (especially the latter) banked on an almost totally weak Persia. Greek armues explouted this too, but also conquered much of the known world. The Romans conquered most of central and western Europe, and the Persian Empire was simply huge, The same for the British Empire.

    Maybe I'm just subconciously programmed to believe white empires were better!

    Because modern Turks are generally white.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    Because modern Turks are generally white.
    Huh? On what measure? Turks are in now way cosnidered white.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    Maybe I'm just subconciously programmed to believe white empires were better
    No, it's because you happen to live in a period of time where white empires had significant power and that you are most probably biased towards your own race. The non-white empires you named were equally or more powerful but were more prominent in the distant past.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawz-)
    However I would be interested to hear from others as to what factors explain this observation if we are to discount genetics.
    There's a book on this. It's called Guns, Germs and Steel. Written by Jared Diamond.
 
 
 
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.