CDZ Was America Great When?

[harmonica]

are you saying the NAs were inhuman--they never did any of that??
David Scheimann

.....the NAs raped/murdered/hated/etc .......
what are trying to say??
the whites had the superior technology/etc ..fact...fact ...

Do you honestly believe that when we got here and screwed over the natives we were technologically more advanced? What - just because we had guns?
Believe it was some timely sarcasm directed at those who believe the white man is somehow more civilized.
We ain't, and prove it on a daily basis

we were not more advanced??
big gun ships/more advanced metal-iron applications/horses/firearms/etc
it's undeniable--obvious....you must be trolling

timely sarcasm?? that just means he thinks I MUST be racist/hater/etc
it was a reply to my post
I never said anything about the whites being more civilized---I said advanced technology

just like the blacks --EVERY white is a RACIST

no--YOU/etc have it wrong !! as I've stated before---most people/MSM/modern Hollywood/etc make out the WHITES as being the ONLY ''uncivilized''/racist race
it is the WHITES who are labeled and castigated as the ONLY evil race
this is more than obvious in the MSM

Yep.View attachment 173532

Sent from my SM-J727VPP using Tapatalk

blacks are more violent per capita than the whites
the numbers prove this--do I really need to post the statistics --for the hundredth time on USMB?

You are an idiot.White people have traditionally been most violent.Probably because of their technology.
The Chinese invented gunpowder and made fireworks. Whitey made bombs.

not per capita
just like whites commit the most crime but blacks commit it more per capita making the black race more criminal as a whole --at a much higher rate....it's not even close to the white rate

again-- look up the numbers on the Rwandan Genocide--the Hutus were much more violent than the Germans and the Holocaust
Shaka Zulu was violent/etc

you just became an idiot because you said ''whites are more violent''
wrong and you can't even get close to proving it
your whole post is crap and worthless because of that

 

[harmonica]

are you saying the NAs were inhuman--they never did any of that??
David Scheimann

.....the NAs raped/murdered/hated/etc .......
what are trying to say??
the whites had the superior technology/etc ..fact...fact ...

Do you honestly believe that when we got here and screwed over the natives we were technologically more advanced? What - just because we had guns?
Believe it was some timely sarcasm directed at those who believe the white man is somehow more civilized.
We ain't, and prove it on a daily basis

we were not more advanced??
big gun ships/more advanced metal-iron applications/horses/firearms/etc
it's undeniable--obvious....you must be trolling

timely sarcasm?? that just means he thinks I MUST be racist/hater/etc
it was a reply to my post
I never said anything about the whites being more civilized---I said advanced technology

just like the blacks --EVERY white is a RACIST

no--YOU/etc have it wrong !! as I've stated before---most people/MSM/modern Hollywood/etc make out the WHITES as being the ONLY ''uncivilized''/racist race
it is the WHITES who are labeled and castigated as the ONLY evil race
this is more than obvious in the MSM

Yep.View attachment 173532

Sent from my SM-J727VPP using Tapatalk

blacks are more violent per capita than the whites
the numbers prove this--do I really need to post the statistics --for the hundredth time on USMB?

You are an idiot.White people have traditionally been most violent.Probably because of their technology.
The Chinese invented gunpowder and made fireworks. Whitey made bombs.

According to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports, in the year 2008 black youths, who make up 16% of the youth population, accounted for 52% of juvenile violent crime arrests, including 58.5% of youth arrests for homicide and 67% for robbery. Black youths were overrepresented in all offense categories except DUI, liquor laws and drunkenness.

look at those numbers!!

1980 to 2008, with whites 45.3% and "Other" 2.2%. The offending rate for African Americans was almost 8 times higher than whites,

EIGHT TIMES higher !!
Race and crime in the United States - Wikipedia

they commit sexual crimes at over TWICE the rate of whites

commit hate crimes at over TWICE the rate
Offenders

etc etc
let's see your stats

 

[sartre play]

All would do well to read a little history & see how the early white settlers lived. a great book on how we colonized is Sarah Vowell's book Unfamiliar fishes.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Do you honestly believe that when we got here and screwed over the natives we were technologically more advanced? What - just because we had guns?
Believe it was some timely sarcasm directed at those who believe the white man is somehow more civilized.
We ain't, and prove it on a daily basis

we were not more advanced??
big gun ships/more advanced metal-iron applications/horses/firearms/etc
it's undeniable--obvious....you must be trolling

timely sarcasm?? that just means he thinks I MUST be racist/hater/etc
it was a reply to my post
I never said anything about the whites being more civilized---I said advanced technology

just like the blacks --EVERY white is a RACIST

no--YOU/etc have it wrong !! as I've stated before---most people/MSM/modern Hollywood/etc make out the WHITES as being the ONLY ''uncivilized''/racist race
it is the WHITES who are labeled and castigated as the ONLY evil race
this is more than obvious in the MSM

Yep.View attachment 173532

Sent from my SM-J727VPP using Tapatalk

blacks are more violent per capita than the whites
the numbers prove this--do I really need to post the statistics --for the hundredth time on USMB?

You are an idiot.White people have traditionally been most violent.Probably because of their technology.
The Chinese invented gunpowder and made fireworks. Whitey made bombs.

According to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports, in the year 2008 black youths, who make up 16% of the youth population, accounted for 52% of juvenile violent crime arrests, including 58.5% of youth arrests for homicide and 67% for robbery. Black youths were overrepresented in all offense categories except DUI, liquor laws and drunkenness.

look at those numbers!!

1980 to 2008, with whites 45.3% and "Other" 2.2%. The offending rate for African Americans was almost 8 times higher than whites,

EIGHT TIMES higher !!
Race and crime in the United States - Wikipedia

they commit sexual crimes at over TWICE the rate of whites

commit hate crimes at over TWICE the rate
Offenders

etc etc
let's see your stats

Your stats are laughable. Ethnicity has no influence on criminal activity. Poverty does as does environment, social exclusion and many other factors. Are you seriously suggesting that your skin colour determines your level of morality ?

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Do you honestly believe that when we got here and screwed over the natives we were technologically more advanced? What - just because we had guns?
Believe it was some timely sarcasm directed at those who believe the white man is somehow more civilized.
We ain't, and prove it on a daily basis

we were not more advanced??
big gun ships/more advanced metal-iron applications/horses/firearms/etc
it's undeniable--obvious....you must be trolling

timely sarcasm?? that just means he thinks I MUST be racist/hater/etc
it was a reply to my post
I never said anything about the whites being more civilized---I said advanced technology

just like the blacks --EVERY white is a RACIST

no--YOU/etc have it wrong !! as I've stated before---most people/MSM/modern Hollywood/etc make out the WHITES as being the ONLY ''uncivilized''/racist race
it is the WHITES who are labeled and castigated as the ONLY evil race
this is more than obvious in the MSM

Yep.View attachment 173532

Sent from my SM-J727VPP using Tapatalk

blacks are more violent per capita than the whites
the numbers prove this--do I really need to post the statistics --for the hundredth time on USMB?

You are an idiot.White people have traditionally been most violent.Probably because of their technology.
The Chinese invented gunpowder and made fireworks. Whitey made bombs.

not per capita
just like whites commit the most crime but blacks commit it more per capita making the black race more criminal as a whole --at a much higher rate....it's not even close to the white rate

again-- look up the numbers on the Rwandan Genocide--the Hutus were much more violent than the Germans and the Holocaust
Shaka Zulu was violent/etc

you just became an idiot because you said ''whites are more violent''
wrong and you can't even get close to proving it
your whole post is crap and worthless because of that

Lets just recap.
Whitey - Genocide in South America.North America, Australia. parts of Africa, Europe..............Hitler,Stalin......................

 

[Hellbilly]

we were not more advanced??
big gun ships/more advanced metal-iron applications/horses/firearms/etc
it's undeniable--obvious....you must be trolling

timely sarcasm?? that just means he thinks I MUST be racist/hater/etc
it was a reply to my post
I never said anything about the whites being more civilized---I said advanced technology

just like the blacks --EVERY white is a RACIST

no--YOU/etc have it wrong !! as I've stated before---most people/MSM/modern Hollywood/etc make out the WHITES as being the ONLY ''uncivilized''/racist race
it is the WHITES who are labeled and castigated as the ONLY evil race
this is more than obvious in the MSM

Yep.View attachment 173532

Sent from my SM-J727VPP using Tapatalk

blacks are more violent per capita than the whites
the numbers prove this--do I really need to post the statistics --for the hundredth time on USMB?

You are an idiot.White people have traditionally been most violent.Probably because of their technology.
The Chinese invented gunpowder and made fireworks. Whitey made bombs.

not per capita
just like whites commit the most crime but blacks commit it more per capita making the black race more criminal as a whole --at a much higher rate....it's not even close to the white rate

again-- look up the numbers on the Rwandan Genocide--the Hutus were much more violent than the Germans and the Holocaust
Shaka Zulu was violent/etc

you just became an idiot because you said ''whites are more violent''
wrong and you can't even get close to proving it
your whole post is crap and worthless because of that

Lets just recap.
Whitey - Genocide in South America.North America, Australia. parts of Africa, Europe..............Hitler,Stalin......................

Lest we forget WW1,WW2, the war in Korea, Vietnam. ALL started by whitey.

Sent from my SM-J727VPP using Tapatalk

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Yep.View attachment 173532

Sent from my SM-J727VPP using Tapatalk

blacks are more violent per capita than the whites
the numbers prove this--do I really need to post the statistics --for the hundredth time on USMB?

You are an idiot.White people have traditionally been most violent.Probably because of their technology.
The Chinese invented gunpowder and made fireworks. Whitey made bombs.

not per capita
just like whites commit the most crime but blacks commit it more per capita making the black race more criminal as a whole --at a much higher rate....it's not even close to the white rate

again-- look up the numbers on the Rwandan Genocide--the Hutus were much more violent than the Germans and the Holocaust
Shaka Zulu was violent/etc

you just became an idiot because you said ''whites are more violent''
wrong and you can't even get close to proving it
your whole post is crap and worthless because of that

Lets just recap.
Whitey - Genocide in South America.North America, Australia. parts of Africa, Europe..............Hitler,Stalin......................

Lest we forget WW1,WW2, the war in Korea, Vietnam. ALL started by whitey.

Sent from my SM-J727VPP using Tapatalk

Its still going on today.
Iraq,Syria,Bosnia,Ulster........................

 

[harmonica]

we were not more advanced??
big gun ships/more advanced metal-iron applications/horses/firearms/etc
it's undeniable--obvious....you must be trolling

timely sarcasm?? that just means he thinks I MUST be racist/hater/etc
it was a reply to my post
I never said anything about the whites being more civilized---I said advanced technology

just like the blacks --EVERY white is a RACIST

no--YOU/etc have it wrong !! as I've stated before---most people/MSM/modern Hollywood/etc make out the WHITES as being the ONLY ''uncivilized''/racist race
it is the WHITES who are labeled and castigated as the ONLY evil race
this is more than obvious in the MSM

Yep.View attachment 173532

Sent from my SM-J727VPP using Tapatalk

blacks are more violent per capita than the whites
the numbers prove this--do I really need to post the statistics --for the hundredth time on USMB?

You are an idiot.White people have traditionally been most violent.Probably because of their technology.
The Chinese invented gunpowder and made fireworks. Whitey made bombs.

not per capita
just like whites commit the most crime but blacks commit it more per capita making the black race more criminal as a whole --at a much higher rate....it's not even close to the white rate

again-- look up the numbers on the Rwandan Genocide--the Hutus were much more violent than the Germans and the Holocaust
Shaka Zulu was violent/etc

you just became an idiot because you said ''whites are more violent''
wrong and you can't even get close to proving it
your whole post is crap and worthless because of that

Lets just recap.
Whitey - Genocide in South America.North America, Australia. parts of Africa, Europe..............Hitler,Stalin......................

NAs/Africans--- genocide/rape/murder/etc

 

[harmonica]

blacks are more violent per capita than the whites
the numbers prove this--do I really need to post the statistics --for the hundredth time on USMB?

You are an idiot.White people have traditionally been most violent.Probably because of their technology.
The Chinese invented gunpowder and made fireworks. Whitey made bombs.

not per capita
just like whites commit the most crime but blacks commit it more per capita making the black race more criminal as a whole --at a much higher rate....it's not even close to the white rate

again-- look up the numbers on the Rwandan Genocide--the Hutus were much more violent than the Germans and the Holocaust
Shaka Zulu was violent/etc

you just became an idiot because you said ''whites are more violent''
wrong and you can't even get close to proving it
your whole post is crap and worthless because of that

Lets just recap.
Whitey - Genocide in South America.North America, Australia. parts of Africa, Europe..............Hitler,Stalin......................

Lest we forget WW1,WW2, the war in Korea, Vietnam. ALL started by whitey.

Sent from my SM-J727VPP using Tapatalk

Its still going on today.
Iraq,Syria,Bosnia,Ulster........................

lest we forgot the Hutus genocide

 

[harmonica]

Yep.View attachment 173532

Sent from my SM-J727VPP using Tapatalk

blacks are more violent per capita than the whites
the numbers prove this--do I really need to post the statistics --for the hundredth time on USMB?

You are an idiot.White people have traditionally been most violent.Probably because of their technology.
The Chinese invented gunpowder and made fireworks. Whitey made bombs.

not per capita
just like whites commit the most crime but blacks commit it more per capita making the black race more criminal as a whole --at a much higher rate....it's not even close to the white rate

again-- look up the numbers on the Rwandan Genocide--the Hutus were much more violent than the Germans and the Holocaust
Shaka Zulu was violent/etc

you just became an idiot because you said ''whites are more violent''
wrong and you can't even get close to proving it
your whole post is crap and worthless because of that

Lets just recap.
Whitey - Genocide in South America.North America, Australia. parts of Africa, Europe..............Hitler,Stalin......................

Lest we forget WW1,WW2, the war in Korea, Vietnam. ALL started by whitey.

Sent from my SM-J727VPP using Tapatalk

once again--the Africans and NAs started wars also

 

[harmonica]

we were not more advanced??
big gun ships/more advanced metal-iron applications/horses/firearms/etc
it's undeniable--obvious....you must be trolling

timely sarcasm?? that just means he thinks I MUST be racist/hater/etc
it was a reply to my post
I never said anything about the whites being more civilized---I said advanced technology

just like the blacks --EVERY white is a RACIST

no--YOU/etc have it wrong !! as I've stated before---most people/MSM/modern Hollywood/etc make out the WHITES as being the ONLY ''uncivilized''/racist race
it is the WHITES who are labeled and castigated as the ONLY evil race
this is more than obvious in the MSM

Yep.View attachment 173532

Sent from my SM-J727VPP using Tapatalk

blacks are more violent per capita than the whites
the numbers prove this--do I really need to post the statistics --for the hundredth time on USMB?

You are an idiot.White people have traditionally been most violent.Probably because of their technology.
The Chinese invented gunpowder and made fireworks. Whitey made bombs.

According to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports, in the year 2008 black youths, who make up 16% of the youth population, accounted for 52% of juvenile violent crime arrests, including 58.5% of youth arrests for homicide and 67% for robbery. Black youths were overrepresented in all offense categories except DUI, liquor laws and drunkenness.

look at those numbers!!

1980 to 2008, with whites 45.3% and "Other" 2.2%. The offending rate for African Americans was almost 8 times higher than whites,

EIGHT TIMES higher !!
Race and crime in the United States - Wikipedia

they commit sexual crimes at over TWICE the rate of whites

commit hate crimes at over TWICE the rate
Offenders

etc etc
let's see your stats

Your stats are laughable. Ethnicity has no influence on criminal activity. Poverty does as does environment, social exclusion and many other factors. Are you seriously suggesting that your skin colour determines your level of morality ?

hahahah-hahaha-Tommy does not believe statistical facts--like others on here
the facts are right there and Tommy says ''that's laughable''
no--what's laughable is you/blacks/etc are so full of hate/racism/bigotry/etc that you deny FACTS
you are like OJ when he denied wearing those shoes---when the picture was right there
it's worthless to discuss with a rock like you if you don't want to believe facts/stats/etc
...I guess to prove something, you should just say ---'' I know that's true''--

I provided statistics/numbers and I asked for yours---you didn't come through
you have no evidence to back up your claim--but I did
this conversation is over...we are not going to go around in circles

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Yep.View attachment 173532

Sent from my SM-J727VPP using Tapatalk

blacks are more violent per capita than the whites
the numbers prove this--do I really need to post the statistics --for the hundredth time on USMB?

You are an idiot.White people have traditionally been most violent.Probably because of their technology.
The Chinese invented gunpowder and made fireworks. Whitey made bombs.

According to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports, in the year 2008 black youths, who make up 16% of the youth population, accounted for 52% of juvenile violent crime arrests, including 58.5% of youth arrests for homicide and 67% for robbery. Black youths were overrepresented in all offense categories except DUI, liquor laws and drunkenness.

look at those numbers!!

1980 to 2008, with whites 45.3% and "Other" 2.2%. The offending rate for African Americans was almost 8 times higher than whites,

EIGHT TIMES higher !!
Race and crime in the United States - Wikipedia

they commit sexual crimes at over TWICE the rate of whites

commit hate crimes at over TWICE the rate
Offenders

etc etc
let's see your stats

Your stats are laughable. Ethnicity has no influence on criminal activity. Poverty does as does environment, social exclusion and many other factors. Are you seriously suggesting that your skin colour determines your level of morality ?

hahahah-hahaha-Tommy does not believe statistical facts--like others on here
the facts are right there and Tommy says ''that's laughable''
no--what's laughable is you/blacks/etc are so full of hate/racism/bigotry/etc that you deny FACTS
you are like OJ when he denied wearing those shoes---when the picture was right there
it's worthless to discuss with a rock like you if you don't want to believe facts/stats/etc
...I guess to prove something, you should just say ---'' I know that's true''--

I provided statistics/numbers and I asked for yours---you didn't come through
you have no evidence to back up your claim--but I did
this conversation is over...we are not going to go around in circles

Lol, your stats only prove one fact to the rest of us.

 

[Hellbilly]

blacks are more violent per capita than the whites
the numbers prove this--do I really need to post the statistics --for the hundredth time on USMB?

You are an idiot.White people have traditionally been most violent.Probably because of their technology.
The Chinese invented gunpowder and made fireworks. Whitey made bombs.

not per capita
just like whites commit the most crime but blacks commit it more per capita making the black race more criminal as a whole --at a much higher rate....it's not even close to the white rate

again-- look up the numbers on the Rwandan Genocide--the Hutus were much more violent than the Germans and the Holocaust
Shaka Zulu was violent/etc

you just became an idiot because you said ''whites are more violent''
wrong and you can't even get close to proving it
your whole post is crap and worthless because of that

Lets just recap.
Whitey - Genocide in South America.North America, Australia. parts of Africa, Europe..............Hitler,Stalin......................

Lest we forget WW1,WW2, the war in Korea, Vietnam. ALL started by whitey.

Sent from my SM-J727VPP using Tapatalk

once again--the Africans and NAs started wars also

Enlighten me. What wars did they start and how many people died as a result of these wars?

Sent from my SM-J727VPP using Tapatalk

 

[usmbguest5318]

Yep.View attachment 173532

Sent from my SM-J727VPP using Tapatalk

blacks are more violent per capita than the whites
the numbers prove this--do I really need to post the statistics --for the hundredth time on USMB?

You are an idiot.White people have traditionally been most violent.Probably because of their technology.
The Chinese invented gunpowder and made fireworks. Whitey made bombs.

not per capita
just like whites commit the most crime but blacks commit it more per capita making the black race more criminal as a whole --at a much higher rate....it's not even close to the white rate

again-- look up the numbers on the Rwandan Genocide--the Hutus were much more violent than the Germans and the Holocaust
Shaka Zulu was violent/etc

you just became an idiot because you said ''whites are more violent''
wrong and you can't even get close to proving it
your whole post is crap and worthless because of that

Lets just recap.
Whitey - Genocide in South America.North America, Australia. parts of Africa, Europe..............Hitler,Stalin......................

Lest we forget WW1,WW2, the war in Korea, Vietnam. ALL started by whitey.

Sent from my SM-J727VPP using Tapatalk

Lest we forget WW1,WW2, the war in Korea, Vietnam. ALL started by whitey.

While there's no way I'm ever going to argue that race is a determining factor for the nature and extent of a people's bellicosity and belligerence, as a point of circumstance, there's no way to credibly refute/deny that at least since the Crusades, the bulk of death and destruction wreaked throughout the planet was founded on a host of notions Europeans had that enabled them, under specious/sophistic auspices of audaciously arrogant altruism (see Kipling), to justify myriad wars and incursions against and/or the diminution and devaluation, killing and enslavement of myriad societies of pretty much anyone having a different world-view than did Western Europeans and that Europeans determined they could dominate by force if those societies were unwilling to "capitulate" voluntarily. Indeed, the entirety of post-Fall Western Civilization, most especially from the Renaissance forward, is little other than one event after another whereby Europeans' unyielding "my way or the highway" has been the principal attitude and course of actions Europeans (and later Americans) took toward nearly all other societies.

To wit, no non-European civilization marched or sailed after 1400 to plunder, conscript and bend to their will the natural and human resources of entire societies/civilizations in Europe, or anywhere else, for that matter. Indeed, one cannot even very generously look back to 800-1100 A.D. and construe the Moorish invasion and occupation and occupation of Spain, to which the Crusades were a response, as an incursion of non-white folks on Europeans because given their Middle Eastern origins, the Moors, though some of them were dark skinned and of African ancestry, they were yet members of Western Civilization, white folks' civilization, not of Sub-Saharan or Far East Asian ancestry.

As I said, however, that Europeans did such things is more coincidental to their race, coincidental to their whiteness, if you will, than because of it. For example, consider the nature and extent of colonization and enslavement in which Russia engaged as contrasted with that of England, France, and Spain. For example, though from the Renaissance to the middle of the 19th century Russia had no compunction about slavery, its aristocrats enslaved the white folks who occupied territories Russia invaded or anyone who sold themselves into slavery. One's eligibility to obtain the status of a slave had no skin color constraints.

To gain an even better understanding, one might seek the answer to the question: Why did far Western European monarchs, with Papal approbation, in contrast to Russian monarchs and/or with Far East Asian and African monarchs, condone race-based slavery and cleave to the notion that it was okay to take what they wanted from people who already occupied other parts of the world? The answer will be found the comprehensive examination of several factors:

• The nature of intra-European politics and global politics/diplomacy
  • Europe's monarchs were all related to one another. While one may have very heated contests with one's siblings and first cousins, one's not about to steal and formally enslave their subjects because doing so opens the door to one doing so to one's own people. [1] Doing that will create utter havoc in one's own country. One need only compare the size of the nobility to the size of common population to know that no matter how much one was of a mind to do so, even coming close to such a state of being was, flat-out, a "non starter."
  • European monarchs were concerned with the balance of power (BoP) [2]: A consequence of the BoP as pre-modern-era European potentates saw/managed it is that they couldn't conquer one another's lands, yet, for a host of reasons, neither were they willing to combine their lands to form a single political unit.
• Economics and size--> Quite simply, to "keep up" with their relatives, most notably Russia, smaller countries had to secure resources from elsewhere. For most European powers, that meant Sub-Saharan Africa, the Americas, India and Australia.
  
  
  
  
  Map of Europe and Asia, 1840-1900
  
  It takes little prescience to see that monarchs west of Russia hadn't the same easy southward and westward conquering options, options that resulted in the enslavement of conquered white folks, Russia's tsars did.
• Because they could. The continual warring amongst the European powers all but forced them to employ gunpowder (something they learned of from the Chinese) not to decorative ends, but to militaristic ones.

Note:

1. Make no mistake, slavery was politically contentious in Europe long before it come to a head in the American Civil War. With the decline of Roman slavery in the 5th century, the institution waned in western Europe and by the 11th century had virtually disappeared. Portuguese exploration of the west coast of Africa beginning in 1420, however, created an interest in slavery in the recently formed colonies of North America, South America, and the West Indies, where the need for plantation labour generated an immense market for slaves. That said, insofar as it wasn't a sovereign's own people being enslaved, and slavery generated revenue streams, it wasn't hard to be insouciant about it, thus it took a very long time to terminate legal forbearance of it.
   • History of African Slave Trade
   • The Italian Renaissance in the Mediterranean, or, Between East and West.
     
   • Migrants in Chains: On the Enslavement of Muslims in Renaissance and Enlightenment Europe
     
   • The History of the Abolition of the African Slave-Trade
2. Europe and China Compared
   The Balance of Power: a Cause of War, a Condition of Peace, or Both?
   The Balance of Power

Additional references:

• An Essay on the Natural History of Mankind
  
• The Colonial Origins of Comparative Development: An Empirical Investigation

 

[harmonica]

blacks are more violent per capita than the whites
the numbers prove this--do I really need to post the statistics --for the hundredth time on USMB?

You are an idiot.White people have traditionally been most violent.Probably because of their technology.
The Chinese invented gunpowder and made fireworks. Whitey made bombs.

not per capita
just like whites commit the most crime but blacks commit it more per capita making the black race more criminal as a whole --at a much higher rate....it's not even close to the white rate

again-- look up the numbers on the Rwandan Genocide--the Hutus were much more violent than the Germans and the Holocaust
Shaka Zulu was violent/etc

you just became an idiot because you said ''whites are more violent''
wrong and you can't even get close to proving it
your whole post is crap and worthless because of that

Lets just recap.
Whitey - Genocide in South America.North America, Australia. parts of Africa, Europe..............Hitler,Stalin......................

Lest we forget WW1,WW2, the war in Korea, Vietnam. ALL started by whitey.

Sent from my SM-J727VPP using Tapatalk

Lest we forget WW1,WW2, the war in Korea, Vietnam. ALL started by whitey.

While there's no way I'm ever going to argue that race is a determining factor for the nature and extent of a people's bellicosity and belligerence, as a point of circumstance, there's no way to credibly refute/deny that at least since the Crusades, the bulk of death and destruction wreaked throughout the planet was founded on a host of notions Europeans had that enabled them, under specious/sophistic auspices of audaciously arrogant altruism (see Kipling), to justify myriad wars and incursions against and/or the diminution and devaluation, killing and enslavement of myriad societies of pretty much anyone having a different world-view than did Western Europeans and that Europeans determined they could dominate by force if those societies were unwilling to "capitulate" voluntarily. Indeed, the entirety of post-Fall Western Civilization, most especially from the Renaissance forward, is little other than one event after another whereby Europeans' unyielding "my way or the highway" has been the principal attitude and course of actions Europeans (and later Americans) took toward nearly all other societies.

To wit, no non-European civilization marched or sailed after 1400 to plunder, conscript and bend to their will the natural and human resources of entire societies/civilizations in Europe, or anywhere else, for that matter. Indeed, one cannot even very generously look back to 800-1100 A.D. and construe the Moorish invasion and occupation and occupation of Spain, to which the Crusades were a response, as an incursion of non-white folks on Europeans because given their Middle Eastern origins, the Moors, though some of them were dark skinned and of African ancestry, they were yet members of Western Civilization, white folks' civilization, not of Sub-Saharan or Far East Asian ancestry.

As I said, however, that Europeans did such things is more coincidental to their race, coincidental to their whiteness, if you will, than because of it. For example, consider the nature and extent of colonization and enslavement in which Russia engaged as contrasted with that of England, France, and Spain. For example, though from the Renaissance to the middle of the 19th century Russia had no compunction about slavery, its aristocrats enslaved the white folks who occupied territories Russia invaded or anyone who sold themselves into slavery. One's eligibility to obtain the status of a slave had no skin color constraints.

To gain an even better understanding, one might seek the answer to the question: Why did far Western European monarchs, with Papal approbation, in contrast to Russian monarchs and/or with Far East Asian and African monarchs, condone race-based slavery and cleave to the notion that it was okay to take what they wanted from people who already occupied other parts of the world? The answer will be found the comprehensive examination of several factors:

• The nature of intra-European politics and global politics/diplomacy
  • Europe's monarchs were all related to one another. While one may have very heated contests with one's siblings and first cousins, one's not about to steal and formally enslave their subjects because doing so opens the door to one doing so to one's own people. [1] Doing that will create utter havoc in one's own country. One need only compare the size of the nobility to the size of common population to know that no matter how much one was of a mind to do so, even coming close to such a state of being was, flat-out, a "non starter."
  • European monarchs were concerned with the balance of power (BoP) [2]: A consequence of the BoP as pre-modern-era European potentates saw/managed it is that they couldn't conquer one another's lands, yet, for a host of reasons, neither were they willing to combine their lands to form a single political unit.
• Economics and size--> Quite simply, to "keep up" with their relatives, most notably Russia, smaller countries had to secure resources from elsewhere. For most European powers, that meant Sub-Saharan Africa, the Americas, India and Australia.
  
  
  
  
  Map of Europe and Asia, 1840-1900
  
  It takes little prescience to see that monarchs west of Russia hadn't the same easy southward and westward conquering options, options that resulted in the enslavement of conquered white folks, Russia's tsars did.
• Because they could. The continual warring amongst the European powers all but forced them to employ gunpowder (something they learned of from the Chinese) not to decorative ends, but to militaristic ones.

Note:

1. Make no mistake, slavery was politically contentious in Europe long before it come to a head in the American Civil War. With the decline of Roman slavery in the 5th century, the institution waned in western Europe and by the 11th century had virtually disappeared. Portuguese exploration of the west coast of Africa beginning in 1420, however, created an interest in slavery in the recently formed colonies of North America, South America, and the West Indies, where the need for plantation labour generated an immense market for slaves. That said, insofar as it wasn't a sovereign's own people being enslaved, and slavery generated revenue streams, it wasn't hard to be insouciant about it, thus it took a very long time to terminate legal forbearance of it.
   • History of African Slave Trade
   • The Italian Renaissance in the Mediterranean, or, Between East and West.
     
   • Migrants in Chains: On the Enslavement of Muslims in Renaissance and Enlightenment Europe
     
   • The History of the Abolition of the African Slave-Trade
2. Europe and China Compared
   The Balance of Power: a Cause of War, a Condition of Peace, or Both?
   The Balance of Power

Additional references:

• An Essay on the Natural History of Mankind
  
• The Colonial Origins of Comparative Development: An Empirical Investigation

the NAs and the Africans did plunder, conscript and bend to their will the human resources of entire societies
the Iroquois and Shaka Zulu--as pointed out in my other posts
you have not read them or don't want to face the facts

again--it is laughable for you people to try to paint the whites as the most violent--you can't---impossible --so stop trying

 

[harmonica]

blacks are more violent per capita than the whites
the numbers prove this--do I really need to post the statistics --for the hundredth time on USMB?

You are an idiot.White people have traditionally been most violent.Probably because of their technology.
The Chinese invented gunpowder and made fireworks. Whitey made bombs.

not per capita
just like whites commit the most crime but blacks commit it more per capita making the black race more criminal as a whole --at a much higher rate....it's not even close to the white rate

again-- look up the numbers on the Rwandan Genocide--the Hutus were much more violent than the Germans and the Holocaust
Shaka Zulu was violent/etc

you just became an idiot because you said ''whites are more violent''
wrong and you can't even get close to proving it
your whole post is crap and worthless because of that

Lets just recap.
Whitey - Genocide in South America.North America, Australia. parts of Africa, Europe..............Hitler,Stalin......................

Lest we forget WW1,WW2, the war in Korea, Vietnam. ALL started by whitey.

Sent from my SM-J727VPP using Tapatalk

Lest we forget WW1,WW2, the war in Korea, Vietnam. ALL started by whitey.

While there's no way I'm ever going to argue that race is a determining factor for the nature and extent of a people's bellicosity and belligerence, as a point of circumstance, there's no way to credibly refute/deny that at least since the Crusades, the bulk of death and destruction wreaked throughout the planet was founded on a host of notions Europeans had that enabled them, under specious/sophistic auspices of audaciously arrogant altruism (see Kipling), to justify myriad wars and incursions against and/or the diminution and devaluation, killing and enslavement of myriad societies of pretty much anyone having a different world-view than did Western Europeans and that Europeans determined they could dominate by force if those societies were unwilling to "capitulate" voluntarily. Indeed, the entirety of post-Fall Western Civilization, most especially from the Renaissance forward, is little other than one event after another whereby Europeans' unyielding "my way or the highway" has been the principal attitude and course of actions Europeans (and later Americans) took toward nearly all other societies.

To wit, no non-European civilization marched or sailed after 1400 to plunder, conscript and bend to their will the natural and human resources of entire societies/civilizations in Europe, or anywhere else, for that matter. Indeed, one cannot even very generously look back to 800-1100 A.D. and construe the Moorish invasion and occupation and occupation of Spain, to which the Crusades were a response, as an incursion of non-white folks on Europeans because given their Middle Eastern origins, the Moors, though some of them were dark skinned and of African ancestry, they were yet members of Western Civilization, white folks' civilization, not of Sub-Saharan or Far East Asian ancestry.

As I said, however, that Europeans did such things is more coincidental to their race, coincidental to their whiteness, if you will, than because of it. For example, consider the nature and extent of colonization and enslavement in which Russia engaged as contrasted with that of England, France, and Spain. For example, though from the Renaissance to the middle of the 19th century Russia had no compunction about slavery, its aristocrats enslaved the white folks who occupied territories Russia invaded or anyone who sold themselves into slavery. One's eligibility to obtain the status of a slave had no skin color constraints.

To gain an even better understanding, one might seek the answer to the question: Why did far Western European monarchs, with Papal approbation, in contrast to Russian monarchs and/or with Far East Asian and African monarchs, condone race-based slavery and cleave to the notion that it was okay to take what they wanted from people who already occupied other parts of the world? The answer will be found the comprehensive examination of several factors:

• The nature of intra-European politics and global politics/diplomacy
  • Europe's monarchs were all related to one another. While one may have very heated contests with one's siblings and first cousins, one's not about to steal and formally enslave their subjects because doing so opens the door to one doing so to one's own people. [1] Doing that will create utter havoc in one's own country. One need only compare the size of the nobility to the size of common population to know that no matter how much one was of a mind to do so, even coming close to such a state of being was, flat-out, a "non starter."
  • European monarchs were concerned with the balance of power (BoP) [2]: A consequence of the BoP as pre-modern-era European potentates saw/managed it is that they couldn't conquer one another's lands, yet, for a host of reasons, neither were they willing to combine their lands to form a single political unit.
• Economics and size--> Quite simply, to "keep up" with their relatives, most notably Russia, smaller countries had to secure resources from elsewhere. For most European powers, that meant Sub-Saharan Africa, the Americas, India and Australia.
  
  
  
  
  Map of Europe and Asia, 1840-1900
  
  It takes little prescience to see that monarchs west of Russia hadn't the same easy southward and westward conquering options, options that resulted in the enslavement of conquered white folks, Russia's tsars did.
• Because they could. The continual warring amongst the European powers all but forced them to employ gunpowder (something they learned of from the Chinese) not to decorative ends, but to militaristic ones.

Note:

1. Make no mistake, slavery was politically contentious in Europe long before it come to a head in the American Civil War. With the decline of Roman slavery in the 5th century, the institution waned in western Europe and by the 11th century had virtually disappeared. Portuguese exploration of the west coast of Africa beginning in 1420, however, created an interest in slavery in the recently formed colonies of North America, South America, and the West Indies, where the need for plantation labour generated an immense market for slaves. That said, insofar as it wasn't a sovereign's own people being enslaved, and slavery generated revenue streams, it wasn't hard to be insouciant about it, thus it took a very long time to terminate legal forbearance of it.
   • History of African Slave Trade
   • The Italian Renaissance in the Mediterranean, or, Between East and West.
     
   • Migrants in Chains: On the Enslavement of Muslims in Renaissance and Enlightenment Europe
     
   • The History of the Abolition of the African Slave-Trade
2. Europe and China Compared
   The Balance of Power: a Cause of War, a Condition of Peace, or Both?
   The Balance of Power

Additional references:

• An Essay on the Natural History of Mankind
  
• The Colonial Origins of Comparative Development: An Empirical Investigation

go read about Shaka Zulu sometime

 

[usmbguest5318]

You are an idiot.White people have traditionally been most violent.Probably because of their technology.
The Chinese invented gunpowder and made fireworks. Whitey made bombs.

not per capita
just like whites commit the most crime but blacks commit it more per capita making the black race more criminal as a whole --at a much higher rate....it's not even close to the white rate

again-- look up the numbers on the Rwandan Genocide--the Hutus were much more violent than the Germans and the Holocaust
Shaka Zulu was violent/etc

you just became an idiot because you said ''whites are more violent''
wrong and you can't even get close to proving it
your whole post is crap and worthless because of that

Lets just recap.
Whitey - Genocide in South America.North America, Australia. parts of Africa, Europe..............Hitler,Stalin......................

Lest we forget WW1,WW2, the war in Korea, Vietnam. ALL started by whitey.

Sent from my SM-J727VPP using Tapatalk

Lest we forget WW1,WW2, the war in Korea, Vietnam. ALL started by whitey.

While there's no way I'm ever going to argue that race is a determining factor for the nature and extent of a people's bellicosity and belligerence, as a point of circumstance, there's no way to credibly refute/deny that at least since the Crusades, the bulk of death and destruction wreaked throughout the planet was founded on a host of notions Europeans had that enabled them, under specious/sophistic auspices of audaciously arrogant altruism (see Kipling), to justify myriad wars and incursions against and/or the diminution and devaluation, killing and enslavement of myriad societies of pretty much anyone having a different world-view than did Western Europeans and that Europeans determined they could dominate by force if those societies were unwilling to "capitulate" voluntarily. Indeed, the entirety of post-Fall Western Civilization, most especially from the Renaissance forward, is little other than one event after another whereby Europeans' unyielding "my way or the highway" has been the principal attitude and course of actions Europeans (and later Americans) took toward nearly all other societies.

To wit, no non-European civilization marched or sailed after 1400 to plunder, conscript and bend to their will the natural and human resources of entire societies/civilizations in Europe, or anywhere else, for that matter. Indeed, one cannot even very generously look back to 800-1100 A.D. and construe the Moorish invasion and occupation and occupation of Spain, to which the Crusades were a response, as an incursion of non-white folks on Europeans because given their Middle Eastern origins, the Moors, though some of them were dark skinned and of African ancestry, they were yet members of Western Civilization, white folks' civilization, not of Sub-Saharan or Far East Asian ancestry.

As I said, however, that Europeans did such things is more coincidental to their race, coincidental to their whiteness, if you will, than because of it. For example, consider the nature and extent of colonization and enslavement in which Russia engaged as contrasted with that of England, France, and Spain. For example, though from the Renaissance to the middle of the 19th century Russia had no compunction about slavery, its aristocrats enslaved the white folks who occupied territories Russia invaded or anyone who sold themselves into slavery. One's eligibility to obtain the status of a slave had no skin color constraints.

To gain an even better understanding, one might seek the answer to the question: Why did far Western European monarchs, with Papal approbation, in contrast to Russian monarchs and/or with Far East Asian and African monarchs, condone race-based slavery and cleave to the notion that it was okay to take what they wanted from people who already occupied other parts of the world? The answer will be found the comprehensive examination of several factors:

• The nature of intra-European politics and global politics/diplomacy
  • Europe's monarchs were all related to one another. While one may have very heated contests with one's siblings and first cousins, one's not about to steal and formally enslave their subjects because doing so opens the door to one doing so to one's own people. [1] Doing that will create utter havoc in one's own country. One need only compare the size of the nobility to the size of common population to know that no matter how much one was of a mind to do so, even coming close to such a state of being was, flat-out, a "non starter."
  • European monarchs were concerned with the balance of power (BoP) [2]: A consequence of the BoP as pre-modern-era European potentates saw/managed it is that they couldn't conquer one another's lands, yet, for a host of reasons, neither were they willing to combine their lands to form a single political unit.
• Economics and size--> Quite simply, to "keep up" with their relatives, most notably Russia, smaller countries had to secure resources from elsewhere. For most European powers, that meant Sub-Saharan Africa, the Americas, India and Australia.
  
  
  
  
  Map of Europe and Asia, 1840-1900
  
  It takes little prescience to see that monarchs west of Russia hadn't the same easy southward and westward conquering options, options that resulted in the enslavement of conquered white folks, Russia's tsars did.
• Because they could. The continual warring amongst the European powers all but forced them to employ gunpowder (something they learned of from the Chinese) not to decorative ends, but to militaristic ones.

Note:

1. Make no mistake, slavery was politically contentious in Europe long before it come to a head in the American Civil War. With the decline of Roman slavery in the 5th century, the institution waned in western Europe and by the 11th century had virtually disappeared. Portuguese exploration of the west coast of Africa beginning in 1420, however, created an interest in slavery in the recently formed colonies of North America, South America, and the West Indies, where the need for plantation labour generated an immense market for slaves. That said, insofar as it wasn't a sovereign's own people being enslaved, and slavery generated revenue streams, it wasn't hard to be insouciant about it, thus it took a very long time to terminate legal forbearance of it.
   • History of African Slave Trade
   • The Italian Renaissance in the Mediterranean, or, Between East and West.
     
   • Migrants in Chains: On the Enslavement of Muslims in Renaissance and Enlightenment Europe
     
   • The History of the Abolition of the African Slave-Trade
2. Europe and China Compared
   The Balance of Power: a Cause of War, a Condition of Peace, or Both?
   The Balance of Power

Additional references:

• An Essay on the Natural History of Mankind
  
• The Colonial Origins of Comparative Development: An Empirical Investigation

the NAs and the Africans did plunder, conscript and bend to their will the human resources of entire societies
the Iroquois and Shaka Zulu--as pointed out in my other posts
you have not read them or don't want to face the facts

again--it is laughable for you people to try to paint the whites as the most violent--you can't---impossible --so stop trying

the NAs and the Africans did plunder, conscript and bend to their will the human resources of entire societies
the Iroquois and Shaka Zulu--as pointed out in my other posts

What?

 

[Hellbilly]

You are an idiot.White people have traditionally been most violent.Probably because of their technology.
The Chinese invented gunpowder and made fireworks. Whitey made bombs.

not per capita
just like whites commit the most crime but blacks commit it more per capita making the black race more criminal as a whole --at a much higher rate....it's not even close to the white rate

again-- look up the numbers on the Rwandan Genocide--the Hutus were much more violent than the Germans and the Holocaust
Shaka Zulu was violent/etc

you just became an idiot because you said ''whites are more violent''
wrong and you can't even get close to proving it
your whole post is crap and worthless because of that

Lets just recap.
Whitey - Genocide in South America.North America, Australia. parts of Africa, Europe..............Hitler,Stalin......................

Lest we forget WW1,WW2, the war in Korea, Vietnam. ALL started by whitey.

Sent from my SM-J727VPP using Tapatalk

Lest we forget WW1,WW2, the war in Korea, Vietnam. ALL started by whitey.

While there's no way I'm ever going to argue that race is a determining factor for the nature and extent of a people's bellicosity and belligerence, as a point of circumstance, there's no way to credibly refute/deny that at least since the Crusades, the bulk of death and destruction wreaked throughout the planet was founded on a host of notions Europeans had that enabled them, under specious/sophistic auspices of audaciously arrogant altruism (see Kipling), to justify myriad wars and incursions against and/or the diminution and devaluation, killing and enslavement of myriad societies of pretty much anyone having a different world-view than did Western Europeans and that Europeans determined they could dominate by force if those societies were unwilling to "capitulate" voluntarily. Indeed, the entirety of post-Fall Western Civilization, most especially from the Renaissance forward, is little other than one event after another whereby Europeans' unyielding "my way or the highway" has been the principal attitude and course of actions Europeans (and later Americans) took toward nearly all other societies.

To wit, no non-European civilization marched or sailed after 1400 to plunder, conscript and bend to their will the natural and human resources of entire societies/civilizations in Europe, or anywhere else, for that matter. Indeed, one cannot even very generously look back to 800-1100 A.D. and construe the Moorish invasion and occupation and occupation of Spain, to which the Crusades were a response, as an incursion of non-white folks on Europeans because given their Middle Eastern origins, the Moors, though some of them were dark skinned and of African ancestry, they were yet members of Western Civilization, white folks' civilization, not of Sub-Saharan or Far East Asian ancestry.

As I said, however, that Europeans did such things is more coincidental to their race, coincidental to their whiteness, if you will, than because of it. For example, consider the nature and extent of colonization and enslavement in which Russia engaged as contrasted with that of England, France, and Spain. For example, though from the Renaissance to the middle of the 19th century Russia had no compunction about slavery, its aristocrats enslaved the white folks who occupied territories Russia invaded or anyone who sold themselves into slavery. One's eligibility to obtain the status of a slave had no skin color constraints.

To gain an even better understanding, one might seek the answer to the question: Why did far Western European monarchs, with Papal approbation, in contrast to Russian monarchs and/or with Far East Asian and African monarchs, condone race-based slavery and cleave to the notion that it was okay to take what they wanted from people who already occupied other parts of the world? The answer will be found the comprehensive examination of several factors:

• The nature of intra-European politics and global politics/diplomacy
  • Europe's monarchs were all related to one another. While one may have very heated contests with one's siblings and first cousins, one's not about to steal and formally enslave their subjects because doing so opens the door to one doing so to one's own people. [1] Doing that will create utter havoc in one's own country. One need only compare the size of the nobility to the size of common population to know that no matter how much one was of a mind to do so, even coming close to such a state of being was, flat-out, a "non starter."
  • European monarchs were concerned with the balance of power (BoP) [2]: A consequence of the BoP as pre-modern-era European potentates saw/managed it is that they couldn't conquer one another's lands, yet, for a host of reasons, neither were they willing to combine their lands to form a single political unit.
• Economics and size--> Quite simply, to "keep up" with their relatives, most notably Russia, smaller countries had to secure resources from elsewhere. For most European powers, that meant Sub-Saharan Africa, the Americas, India and Australia.
  
  
  
  
  Map of Europe and Asia, 1840-1900
  
  It takes little prescience to see that monarchs west of Russia hadn't the same easy southward and westward conquering options, options that resulted in the enslavement of conquered white folks, Russia's tsars did.
• Because they could. The continual warring amongst the European powers all but forced them to employ gunpowder (something they learned of from the Chinese) not to decorative ends, but to militaristic ones.

Note:

1. Make no mistake, slavery was politically contentious in Europe long before it come to a head in the American Civil War. With the decline of Roman slavery in the 5th century, the institution waned in western Europe and by the 11th century had virtually disappeared. Portuguese exploration of the west coast of Africa beginning in 1420, however, created an interest in slavery in the recently formed colonies of North America, South America, and the West Indies, where the need for plantation labour generated an immense market for slaves. That said, insofar as it wasn't a sovereign's own people being enslaved, and slavery generated revenue streams, it wasn't hard to be insouciant about it, thus it took a very long time to terminate legal forbearance of it.
   • History of African Slave Trade
   • The Italian Renaissance in the Mediterranean, or, Between East and West.
     
   • Migrants in Chains: On the Enslavement of Muslims in Renaissance and Enlightenment Europe
     
   • The History of the Abolition of the African Slave-Trade
2. Europe and China Compared
   The Balance of Power: a Cause of War, a Condition of Peace, or Both?
   The Balance of Power

Additional references:

• An Essay on the Natural History of Mankind
  
• The Colonial Origins of Comparative Development: An Empirical Investigation

go read about Shaka Zulu sometime

As usual, the only facts the racist cares about are those that support his racist views.
Clearly you don't care about truth.

Sent from my SM-J727VPP using Tapatalk

 

[harmonica]

not per capita
just like whites commit the most crime but blacks commit it more per capita making the black race more criminal as a whole --at a much higher rate....it's not even close to the white rate

again-- look up the numbers on the Rwandan Genocide--the Hutus were much more violent than the Germans and the Holocaust
Shaka Zulu was violent/etc

you just became an idiot because you said ''whites are more violent''
wrong and you can't even get close to proving it
your whole post is crap and worthless because of that

Lets just recap.
Whitey - Genocide in South America.North America, Australia. parts of Africa, Europe..............Hitler,Stalin......................

Lest we forget WW1,WW2, the war in Korea, Vietnam. ALL started by whitey.

Sent from my SM-J727VPP using Tapatalk

Lest we forget WW1,WW2, the war in Korea, Vietnam. ALL started by whitey.

While there's no way I'm ever going to argue that race is a determining factor for the nature and extent of a people's bellicosity and belligerence, as a point of circumstance, there's no way to credibly refute/deny that at least since the Crusades, the bulk of death and destruction wreaked throughout the planet was founded on a host of notions Europeans had that enabled them, under specious/sophistic auspices of audaciously arrogant altruism (see Kipling), to justify myriad wars and incursions against and/or the diminution and devaluation, killing and enslavement of myriad societies of pretty much anyone having a different world-view than did Western Europeans and that Europeans determined they could dominate by force if those societies were unwilling to "capitulate" voluntarily. Indeed, the entirety of post-Fall Western Civilization, most especially from the Renaissance forward, is little other than one event after another whereby Europeans' unyielding "my way or the highway" has been the principal attitude and course of actions Europeans (and later Americans) took toward nearly all other societies.

To wit, no non-European civilization marched or sailed after 1400 to plunder, conscript and bend to their will the natural and human resources of entire societies/civilizations in Europe, or anywhere else, for that matter. Indeed, one cannot even very generously look back to 800-1100 A.D. and construe the Moorish invasion and occupation and occupation of Spain, to which the Crusades were a response, as an incursion of non-white folks on Europeans because given their Middle Eastern origins, the Moors, though some of them were dark skinned and of African ancestry, they were yet members of Western Civilization, white folks' civilization, not of Sub-Saharan or Far East Asian ancestry.

As I said, however, that Europeans did such things is more coincidental to their race, coincidental to their whiteness, if you will, than because of it. For example, consider the nature and extent of colonization and enslavement in which Russia engaged as contrasted with that of England, France, and Spain. For example, though from the Renaissance to the middle of the 19th century Russia had no compunction about slavery, its aristocrats enslaved the white folks who occupied territories Russia invaded or anyone who sold themselves into slavery. One's eligibility to obtain the status of a slave had no skin color constraints.

To gain an even better understanding, one might seek the answer to the question: Why did far Western European monarchs, with Papal approbation, in contrast to Russian monarchs and/or with Far East Asian and African monarchs, condone race-based slavery and cleave to the notion that it was okay to take what they wanted from people who already occupied other parts of the world? The answer will be found the comprehensive examination of several factors:

• The nature of intra-European politics and global politics/diplomacy
  • Europe's monarchs were all related to one another. While one may have very heated contests with one's siblings and first cousins, one's not about to steal and formally enslave their subjects because doing so opens the door to one doing so to one's own people. [1] Doing that will create utter havoc in one's own country. One need only compare the size of the nobility to the size of common population to know that no matter how much one was of a mind to do so, even coming close to such a state of being was, flat-out, a "non starter."
  • European monarchs were concerned with the balance of power (BoP) [2]: A consequence of the BoP as pre-modern-era European potentates saw/managed it is that they couldn't conquer one another's lands, yet, for a host of reasons, neither were they willing to combine their lands to form a single political unit.
• Economics and size--> Quite simply, to "keep up" with their relatives, most notably Russia, smaller countries had to secure resources from elsewhere. For most European powers, that meant Sub-Saharan Africa, the Americas, India and Australia.
  
  
  
  
  Map of Europe and Asia, 1840-1900
  
  It takes little prescience to see that monarchs west of Russia hadn't the same easy southward and westward conquering options, options that resulted in the enslavement of conquered white folks, Russia's tsars did.
• Because they could. The continual warring amongst the European powers all but forced them to employ gunpowder (something they learned of from the Chinese) not to decorative ends, but to militaristic ones.

Note:

1. Make no mistake, slavery was politically contentious in Europe long before it come to a head in the American Civil War. With the decline of Roman slavery in the 5th century, the institution waned in western Europe and by the 11th century had virtually disappeared. Portuguese exploration of the west coast of Africa beginning in 1420, however, created an interest in slavery in the recently formed colonies of North America, South America, and the West Indies, where the need for plantation labour generated an immense market for slaves. That said, insofar as it wasn't a sovereign's own people being enslaved, and slavery generated revenue streams, it wasn't hard to be insouciant about it, thus it took a very long time to terminate legal forbearance of it.
   • History of African Slave Trade
   • The Italian Renaissance in the Mediterranean, or, Between East and West.
     
   • Migrants in Chains: On the Enslavement of Muslims in Renaissance and Enlightenment Europe
     
   • The History of the Abolition of the African Slave-Trade
2. Europe and China Compared
   The Balance of Power: a Cause of War, a Condition of Peace, or Both?
   The Balance of Power

Additional references:

• An Essay on the Natural History of Mankind
  
• The Colonial Origins of Comparative Development: An Empirical Investi

go read about Shaka Zulu sometime

As usual, the only facts the racist cares about are those that support his racist views.
Clearly you don't care about truth.

Sent from my SM-J727VPP using Tapatalk

you deny the Iroquois and Shaka did not invade/attack/plunder/enslave/etc other people? other than their own tribe?? yes or no

 

[Hellbilly]

Lets just recap.
Whitey - Genocide in South America.North America, Australia. parts of Africa, Europe..............Hitler,Stalin......................

Lest we forget WW1,WW2, the war in Korea, Vietnam. ALL started by whitey.

Sent from my SM-J727VPP using Tapatalk

Lest we forget WW1,WW2, the war in Korea, Vietnam. ALL started by whitey.

While there's no way I'm ever going to argue that race is a determining factor for the nature and extent of a people's bellicosity and belligerence, as a point of circumstance, there's no way to credibly refute/deny that at least since the Crusades, the bulk of death and destruction wreaked throughout the planet was founded on a host of notions Europeans had that enabled them, under specious/sophistic auspices of audaciously arrogant altruism (see Kipling), to justify myriad wars and incursions against and/or the diminution and devaluation, killing and enslavement of myriad societies of pretty much anyone having a different world-view than did Western Europeans and that Europeans determined they could dominate by force if those societies were unwilling to "capitulate" voluntarily. Indeed, the entirety of post-Fall Western Civilization, most especially from the Renaissance forward, is little other than one event after another whereby Europeans' unyielding "my way or the highway" has been the principal attitude and course of actions Europeans (and later Americans) took toward nearly all other societies.

To wit, no non-European civilization marched or sailed after 1400 to plunder, conscript and bend to their will the natural and human resources of entire societies/civilizations in Europe, or anywhere else, for that matter. Indeed, one cannot even very generously look back to 800-1100 A.D. and construe the Moorish invasion and occupation and occupation of Spain, to which the Crusades were a response, as an incursion of non-white folks on Europeans because given their Middle Eastern origins, the Moors, though some of them were dark skinned and of African ancestry, they were yet members of Western Civilization, white folks' civilization, not of Sub-Saharan or Far East Asian ancestry.

As I said, however, that Europeans did such things is more coincidental to their race, coincidental to their whiteness, if you will, than because of it. For example, consider the nature and extent of colonization and enslavement in which Russia engaged as contrasted with that of England, France, and Spain. For example, though from the Renaissance to the middle of the 19th century Russia had no compunction about slavery, its aristocrats enslaved the white folks who occupied territories Russia invaded or anyone who sold themselves into slavery. One's eligibility to obtain the status of a slave had no skin color constraints.

To gain an even better understanding, one might seek the answer to the question: Why did far Western European monarchs, with Papal approbation, in contrast to Russian monarchs and/or with Far East Asian and African monarchs, condone race-based slavery and cleave to the notion that it was okay to take what they wanted from people who already occupied other parts of the world? The answer will be found the comprehensive examination of several factors:

• The nature of intra-European politics and global politics/diplomacy
  • Europe's monarchs were all related to one another. While one may have very heated contests with one's siblings and first cousins, one's not about to steal and formally enslave their subjects because doing so opens the door to one doing so to one's own people. [1] Doing that will create utter havoc in one's own country. One need only compare the size of the nobility to the size of common population to know that no matter how much one was of a mind to do so, even coming close to such a state of being was, flat-out, a "non starter."
  • European monarchs were concerned with the balance of power (BoP) [2]: A consequence of the BoP as pre-modern-era European potentates saw/managed it is that they couldn't conquer one another's lands, yet, for a host of reasons, neither were they willing to combine their lands to form a single political unit.
• Economics and size--> Quite simply, to "keep up" with their relatives, most notably Russia, smaller countries had to secure resources from elsewhere. For most European powers, that meant Sub-Saharan Africa, the Americas, India and Australia.
  
  
  
  
  Map of Europe and Asia, 1840-1900
  
  It takes little prescience to see that monarchs west of Russia hadn't the same easy southward and westward conquering options, options that resulted in the enslavement of conquered white folks, Russia's tsars did.
• Because they could. The continual warring amongst the European powers all but forced them to employ gunpowder (something they learned of from the Chinese) not to decorative ends, but to militaristic ones.

Note:

1. Make no mistake, slavery was politically contentious in Europe long before it come to a head in the American Civil War. With the decline of Roman slavery in the 5th century, the institution waned in western Europe and by the 11th century had virtually disappeared. Portuguese exploration of the west coast of Africa beginning in 1420, however, created an interest in slavery in the recently formed colonies of North America, South America, and the West Indies, where the need for plantation labour generated an immense market for slaves. That said, insofar as it wasn't a sovereign's own people being enslaved, and slavery generated revenue streams, it wasn't hard to be insouciant about it, thus it took a very long time to terminate legal forbearance of it.
   • History of African Slave Trade
   • The Italian Renaissance in the Mediterranean, or, Between East and West.
     
   • Migrants in Chains: On the Enslavement of Muslims in Renaissance and Enlightenment Europe
     
   • The History of the Abolition of the African Slave-Trade
2. Europe and China Compared
   The Balance of Power: a Cause of War, a Condition of Peace, or Both?
   The Balance of Power

Additional references:

• An Essay on the Natural History of Mankind
  
• The Colonial Origins of Comparative Development: An Empirical Investi

go read about Shaka Zulu sometime

As usual, the only facts the racist cares about are those that support his racist views.
Clearly you don't care about truth.

Sent from my SM-J727VPP using Tapatalk

you deny the Iroquois and Shaka did not invade/attack/plunder/enslave/etc other people? other than their own tribe?? yes or no

Answer my question first.

Sent from my SM-J727VPP using Tapatalk