Two Histories: Which one is Correct?

[The Germans are coming]

There is nothing as pathetic as people bragging about what they perceive as "their race".

How little have you personaly achieved in life to be proud of something you never ever were involved in in any possible way.

I agree with the above, but I never made either of the claims you seem to be responding to.

Wasnt directed at you, but the people you quoted.

Indeed, he does make a racial argument by the statement of the word "race" but what he fails to understand is that he is really making a cultural one. There is no proof that the acts he speaks of are genetically driven. There is plenty of proof that it was culturally driven, although, I dismantled that argument brick by brick. As toward past achievements, or lack thereof, I don't see him making that argument either. It is easy to get bogged down in race and catch the "my people" syndrome, however, this is a historical argument. There is no doubt that DAWS is is using the historical argument to trash a people of today, but his historical accuracy is lacking.

Human conflict has more reasons than simple culture. The old Germanic tribes used to believe in a religion that required people to die in battle to permited into heaven. But I doubt that they butcherd half as much as the modern German fascists of the 20th century did. The Skythians of the central plains of Asia as well as the Mongols probably butcherd more.
If I were to pick a region of this planet which saw the highest count of people killed through conflict it would be China. Which even before Communist famines saw civil wars like during the Waring States era that had cost the lives of millions. Which doesnt have as much to do with culture than with with the simply massive population and the sideeffect of living to close to the Mongols.

WTF is a Skythian?

Something from one of your video games?

Moron.

The Skythians were a nomadic tribe who lived in a region spanning from modern day Ukraine to Kazakhstan. They frequently raided and plunderd Greek, Persian and Roman settlements.

 

[whitehall]

Which race ....in the world.....in history? Get in line. The Black race in Africa has been at war with itself (still is) longer than the entire time White Europeans are alleged to have plundered the American natives in the New World. Modern American Native Indians have not only assimilated into modern society but they even have specialized laws tailored to their revenge on the White race with gambling casinos. Meanwhile the Black race in Africa still massacres their own kind in never ending power struggles and the survivors live in disease ridden poverty dependent on the White race's benevolence. Which race is prone to violence?

 

[Asclepias]

Which race ....in the world.....in history? Get in line. The Black race in Africa has been at war with itself (still is) longer than the entire time White Europeans are alleged to have plundered the American natives in the New World. Modern American Native Indians have not only assimilated into modern society but they even have specialized laws tailored to their revenge on the White race with gambling casinos. Meanwhile the Black race in Africa still massacres their own kind in never ending power struggles and the survivors live in disease ridden poverty dependent on the White race's benevolence. Which race is prone to violence?

The white race.

 

[longly]

There is nothing as pathetic as people bragging about what they perceive as "their race".

How little have you personaly achieved in life to be proud of something you never ever were involved in in any possible way.

I agree with the above, but I never made either of the claims you seem to be responding to.

Wasnt directed at you, but the people you quoted.

Indeed, he does make a racial argument by the statement of the word "race" but what he fails to understand is that he is really making a cultural one. There is no proof that the acts he speaks of are genetically driven. There is plenty of proof that it was culturally driven, although, I dismantled that argument brick by brick. As toward past achievements, or lack thereof, I don't see him making that argument either. It is easy to get bogged down in race and catch the "my people" syndrome, however, this is a historical argument. There is no doubt that DAWS is is using the historical argument to trash a people of today, but his historical accuracy is lacking.

Human conflict has more reasons than simple culture. The old Germanic tribes used to believe in a religion that required people to die in battle to permited into heaven. But I doubt that they butcherd half as much as the modern German fascists of the 20th century did. The Skythians of the central plains of Asia as well as the Mongols probably butcherd more.
If I were to pick a region of this planet which saw the highest count of people killed through conflict it would be China. Which even before Communist famines saw civil wars like during the Waring States era that had cost the lives of millions. Which doesnt have as much to do with culture than with with the simply massive population and the sideeffect of living to close to the Mongols.

WTF is a Skythian?

Something from one of your video games?

You never heard of them?

The Scythians (/ˈsɪθi.ən/ or /ˈsɪði.ən/; from Greek Σκύθης, Σκύθοι) were Iranian equestrian tribes who were mentioned as inhabiting large areas in the central Eurasian steppes starting with the 7th century BC up until the 4th century AD.[1][2][3] Their territories during the Iron Age were known to classical Greek sources as "Scythia". Their historical appearance coincided with the rise of equestrian semi-nomadism from the Carpathian Mountains of Europe to the Altai mountains of present-day Mongolia in the Far East during the 1st millennium BC.[4][5] The "classical Scythians" known to ancient Greek historians were located in the northern Black Sea and fore-Caucasus region

 

[Politico]

Yes but what of the conditions that made them victorious in their various conquests? Why were some more successful than others? There are generally two theories on this and each hold an important part of the key. Location and environmental factors are one. Culture is the other.

Umm they had better weapons.

 

[daws101]

Its almost a sure thing that race was nothing more but a concocted metric for catagorizing and nationalizing peoples in the 19th century. Race tends to be recognized today as obsolete or at worst completely fictitious and distiguished early on and critiqued throughout the 19th century and into the 20th by racists and psuedo-sociologists and biologists caught up in the en vouge fields of social darwinism and nationalism.
Arab is not a race, but more accurately an ethnic catagory involving language. American is not a race either - nor African-American. Black, white, red, Indian, Middle Eastern, Pacific-Islander - all of these are not 'race' - they are themselves conceptions of identity, mostly national identity.
A 'white' person is not of an essential 'white race' - this is an imagined category of cultural and political consequence. Really what might constitute a 'white' person can truly be found in most of the world - just as long as they are fair skinned enough.
But to answer the question: "what general group of people was the most violent"
well, pound for pound, Maybe the Mongols, or Romans - who knows exactly.
Here is an interesting thing I heard though. Instead of observing the most violent race or ethnic group in history - think of how more violent humanity is currently. We seem to be perfecting the ability towards destruction. Collectively, violence against each other is getting worst and worst with time. I wont be shocked when we kill ourselves completely.

 

[Jackinthebox]

The natives were decimated by disease around the same time the first settlers arrived. The disease was more potent than any plague ever seen in Europe. While white settlers are often blamed for bringing the disease, it is quite possible that the plague was indigenous.

 

[daws101]

3 3 European Disease in the New World

3.3 EUROPEAN DISEASE IN THE NEW WORLD
I. INTRODUCTION
Until the coming of the Europeans, the New World was free of smallpox, typhus, cholera, and measles--the focus of this article. When Cortez came to invade Mexico, he had with him a silent ally more potent than his small Spanish army. That insidious ally was infectious disease, to which Aztecs and other Native Americans had no immunity.
When he finally entered Tenochtitlan (Mexico City today) in 1520, the year after he first arrived in the New World, he found half of the inhabitants infected with smallpox. In just the first epidemic, nearly 50% had died. Eleven years later, a second epidemic devastated Mexico, and this too was introduced from Spanish ships. By 1595, over 18 million people had died of smallpox, mumps, measles and other European diseases. (For a further narrative, see Cartwright amongst the resources below.)

 

[Publius1787]

Two Histories: Which one is Correct?

When white man arrived in North America, there were about 5,000,000 native red indians. After 20 years of European occupation, several wars and deliberate hunting and destruction of most of the buffalo herds (the Indian's primary food supply)... this population dropped to only about 250,000 native Indians.
When white Europeans landed in Australia, they killed over 40,000 native black aborigines in a deliberate campaign of genocide and slaughter.
During World War 1, over 21 million people died for no good reason.
During World War 2, over 50 million people died, also for no good reason. Who do you think paid for Hitler's rise to power, and who PAID for the growth of his army?
Given some of these facts, ask yourself: Which RACE of human beings has proven itself to be the most aggressive, violent and harmful compared to other races of people? Which RACE has been involved in more killing and imperial military invasions and occupations of other countries than any other RACE?
This goes the heart of the question about "racial superiority"... since nobody can choose their genetics or their parents...

Response Below

Before I begin, it has been well documented that the overwhelming majority of those Native Americans you cited died out due to weak immune systems; unable to handle the pox that European settlers brought with them. Now that your first misrepresentation has been formally trashed allow me to deconstruct the rest.


The conflict principle transcends cultures, races, and ethnicities. Therefore, the question is not whether whites were evil in dominating others, ALL civilizations utilized their technology to dominate others, but whether others would have done the same to whites if the tables were turned. The answer to that question is a resounding YES. Thus, the fallacy of your thinking is clear.

Whites dominated the world not because of racial superiority, but cultural superiority that led to technological superiority. They indeed had an incentive to produce such a culture. They were never but a moment away from war with other white cultures. Hence they raced each other to colonize Africa, Asia, and the Americas, so that they would remain economically competitive against each other and therefore militarily dominant against a war with other white cultures.

The fact that others who were taken over by whites could not band together to flush out invaders is telling. Whites used warring Native American tribes against each other just as they used warring African tribes against each other to their advantage. Generally, whites would go to the losing tribe and offer technologically advanced weapons to them in return for land, treaties, and alliances. Now we must again ask ourselves if this would have happened to whites if the situation was reversed for Native Americans, Africans, or Asians. Indeed, they held the same practices in their smaller and technologically less advanced societies. The answer must be yes.

With that said it is also telling that Japan was never colonized. They did not resist white imperialism because they knew they could not. Instead they took the strengths that white culture produced, adopted them, and quickly became a world power. Indeed, this is how civilizations advance. They took what works from the working model and applied it to themselves. For the past 300 years whites have held the working formula. It has nothing to do with racial superiority, but cultural and technological superiority. So Japan became stronger due to white imperialism, as did every other country (colonized or not) with the technology that with introduced into their cultures.

The wars created by whites were so violent simply because whites ruled the world due to cultural and technological superiority. You cannot tell me that the violence that whites created would not have happened if the shoe was on the other foot. Your argument is a whole bunch of unfounded leftist gobbly gook designed on stoking hatred toward the working model of mainstream Western Civilization so as to replace it with the failed western ideology of Marxism which has led to the destruction of untold millions of domestic populations in their various countries. With that said you aren't really against western ways of thought, you just don't like the current Western Model. Indeed, you are attempting to discredit one civilization with/for an ideology produced by that same civilization. You don't really care about other peoples, you simply want them to be pressed under a different western ideology.

Well there you go. I have answered your question and more. Your argument has been deconstructed, discredited, and proved null and void. Have a nice day. Now enjoy this Japanese orchestra playing Beethoven. You're welcome Japan. In Japan no dispute about No. 1 holiday song - CBS News

Of course, it is wholly possible to disagree with both. In that case, lets hear what you think.

I stopped when the first one stated that the buffalo herds disappeared after 20 years of the white man's presence.

North American Indians were decimated before the first English or French got here, there is no doubt about that.

But the buffalo did not disappear until about 250 years after the Europeans arrived.

Yeah, he plays fast and loose with the facts and he got caught.

 

[Publius1787]

3 3 European Disease in the New World

3.3 EUROPEAN DISEASE IN THE NEW WORLD
I. INTRODUCTION
Until the coming of the Europeans, the New World was free of smallpox, typhus, cholera, and measles--the focus of this article. When Cortez came to invade Mexico, he had with him a silent ally more potent than his small Spanish army. That insidious ally was infectious disease, to which Aztecs and other Native Americans had no immunity.
When he finally entered Tenochtitlan (Mexico City today) in 1520, the year after he first arrived in the New World, he found half of the inhabitants infected with smallpox. In just the first epidemic, nearly 50% had died. Eleven years later, a second epidemic devastated Mexico, and this too was introduced from Spanish ships. By 1595, over 18 million people had died of smallpox, mumps, measles and other European diseases. (For a further narrative, see Cartwright amongst the resources below.)

Thanks, but you're a day late and a dollar short from making the same argument I did when I responded to your post below. Notice how you leave it to the imagination how those Indians died? Now if I can only get you to admit that European colonization was a scheme to remain economically and politically viable amid a Europe where nations were never but a moment away from war with one another, We would be making progress. You want to assign fault and blame. In reality, the actions of Europeans were objective, not subjective, measures.

When white man arrived in North America, there were about 5,000,000 native red indians. After 20 years of European occupation, several wars and deliberate hunting and destruction of most of the buffalo herds (the Indian's primary food supply)... this population dropped to only about 250,000 native Indians.
When white Europeans landed in Australia, they killed over 40,000 native black aborigines in a deliberate campaign of genocide and slaughter.
During World War 1, over 21 million people died for no good reason.
During World War 2, over 50 million people died, also for no good reason. Who do you think paid for Hitler's rise to power, and who PAID for the growth of his army?
Given some of these facts, ask yourself: Which RACE of human beings has proven itself to be the most aggressive, violent and harmful compared to other races of people? Which RACE has been involved in more killing and imperial military invasions and occupations of other countries than any other RACE?
This goes the heart of the question about "racial superiority"... since nobody can choose their genetics or their parents...

 

[Publius1787]

Its almost a sure thing that race was nothing more but a concocted metric for catagorizing and nationalizing peoples in the 19th century. Race tends to be recognized today as obsolete or at worst completely fictitious and distiguished early on and critiqued throughout the 19th century and into the 20th by racists and psuedo-sociologists and biologists caught up in the en vouge fields of social darwinism and nationalism.
Arab is not a race, but more accurately an ethnic catagory involving language. American is not a race either - nor African-American. Black, white, red, Indian, Middle Eastern, Pacific-Islander - all of these are not 'race' - they are themselves conceptions of identity, mostly national identity.
A 'white' person is not of an essential 'white race' - this is an imagined category of cultural and political consequence. Really what might constitute a 'white' person can truly be found in most of the world - just as long as they are fair skinned enough.
But to answer the question: "what general group of people was the most violent"
well, pound for pound, Maybe the Mongols, or Romans - who knows exactly.
Here is an interesting thing I heard though. Instead of observing the most violent race or ethnic group in history - think of how more violent humanity is currently. We seem to be perfecting the ability towards destruction. Collectively, violence against each other is getting worst and worst with time. I wont be shocked when we kill ourselves completely.

Violence has, a percentage of the world population, has gotten lower over time. http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424053111904106704576583203589408180

My how you've changed your tune from your original claim!!! Its like night and day.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Your argument is a whole bunch of unfounded leftist gobbly gook designed on stoking hatred toward the working model of mainstream Western Civilization so as to replace it with the failed western ideology of Marxism

Your pathetic deflection into an ad hom attack on the left was a de facto concession on your part that you had nothing substantive with which to rebut daws101 position.

True.

It also fails as a straw man fallacy.

 

[Publius1787]

Your argument is a whole bunch of unfounded leftist gobbly gook designed on stoking hatred toward the working model of mainstream Western Civilization so as to replace it with the failed western ideology of Marxism

Your pathetic deflection into an ad hom attack on the left was a de facto concession on your part that you had nothing substantive with which to rebut daws101 position.

True.

It also fails as a straw man fallacy.

A straw man is a false argument that does not address the facts designed to badger a response away from the topic at hand. The paragraph that you're calling a straw man fallacy is actually an assessment of where I've heard his false argument before. Indeed, his argument is promoted by a very Marxist school of thought. Nevertheless, I argued his claim point by point in the preceding paragraphs. And yet, it is the last paragraph that you're latching on to, which of course, has nothing to do with my counterargument aside from observing a known home to which his argument hails. That, my friend, is a straw man fallacy. Indeed, if you wanted to debate the facts you would have addressed the paragraphs preceding it. Instead you latched on to this. You two are in fact doing the very thing you're accusing me of.

 

[daws101]

Its almost a sure thing that race was nothing more but a concocted metric for catagorizing and nationalizing peoples in the 19th century. Race tends to be recognized today as obsolete or at worst completely fictitious and distiguished early on and critiqued throughout the 19th century and into the 20th by racists and psuedo-sociologists and biologists caught up in the en vouge fields of social darwinism and nationalism.
Arab is not a race, but more accurately an ethnic catagory involving language. American is not a race either - nor African-American. Black, white, red, Indian, Middle Eastern, Pacific-Islander - all of these are not 'race' - they are themselves conceptions of identity, mostly national identity.
A 'white' person is not of an essential 'white race' - this is an imagined category of cultural and political consequence. Really what might constitute a 'white' person can truly be found in most of the world - just as long as they are fair skinned enough.
But to answer the question: "what general group of people was the most violent"
well, pound for pound, Maybe the Mongols, or Romans - who knows exactly.
Here is an interesting thing I heard though. Instead of observing the most violent race or ethnic group in history - think of how more violent humanity is currently. We seem to be perfecting the ability towards destruction. Collectively, violence against each other is getting worst and worst with time. I wont be shocked when we kill ourselves completely.

Violence has, a percentage of the world population, has gotten lower over time. http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424053111904106704576583203589408180

My how you've changed your tune from your original claim!!! Its like night and day.

I've changed nothing you by some magical means have convinced yourself you've won this argument are the bestest smartest kid in the room and that your sanitized view of history is correct.
in reality none of that is true.
but as was my guess, your pretentiousness makes you blind.

 

[Publius1787]

Its almost a sure thing that race was nothing more but a concocted metric for catagorizing and nationalizing peoples in the 19th century. Race tends to be recognized today as obsolete or at worst completely fictitious and distiguished early on and critiqued throughout the 19th century and into the 20th by racists and psuedo-sociologists and biologists caught up in the en vouge fields of social darwinism and nationalism.
Arab is not a race, but more accurately an ethnic catagory involving language. American is not a race either - nor African-American. Black, white, red, Indian, Middle Eastern, Pacific-Islander - all of these are not 'race' - they are themselves conceptions of identity, mostly national identity.
A 'white' person is not of an essential 'white race' - this is an imagined category of cultural and political consequence. Really what might constitute a 'white' person can truly be found in most of the world - just as long as they are fair skinned enough.
But to answer the question: "what general group of people was the most violent"
well, pound for pound, Maybe the Mongols, or Romans - who knows exactly.
Here is an interesting thing I heard though. Instead of observing the most violent race or ethnic group in history - think of how more violent humanity is currently. We seem to be perfecting the ability towards destruction. Collectively, violence against each other is getting worst and worst with time. I wont be shocked when we kill ourselves completely.

Violence has, a percentage of the world population, has gotten lower over time. http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424053111904106704576583203589408180

My how you've changed your tune from your original claim!!! Its like night and day.

I've changed nothing you by some magical means have convinced yourself you've won this argument are the bestest smartest kid in the room and that your sanitized view of history is correct.
in reality none of that is true.
but as was my guess, your pretentiousness makes you blind.

yeah, I'll let that statement stand on its merits, or lack thereof.

 

[Agit8r]

There is nothing particularly exceptional about American history. It's what people savage and civilized peoples have exacted upon others throughout history and prehistory.

 

[daws101]

There is nothing particularly exceptional about American history. It's what people savage and civilized peoples have exacted upon others throughout history and prehistory.

yeah, but god was not on their side, like here!

 

[Agit8r]

There is nothing particularly exceptional about American history. It's what people savage and civilized peoples have exacted upon others throughout history and prehistory.

yeah, but god was not on their side, like here!

And yet most claimed otherwise:

"this German Volk takes but the one path Providence has bade it take by giving these people a common language. We, therefore, go our way into the future with the deepest belief in God. Would all we have achieved been possible had Providence not helped us? I know that the fruits of human labor are hard-won and transitory if they are not blessed by the Omnipotent. Work such as ours which has received the blessings of the Omnipotent can never again be undone by mere mortals."
-- Adolf Hitler; from speech at Regensburg City Hall (June 6, 1937)

 

[Political Junky]

I agree with the cultural perspective. Whites have a culture that promotes violence and takeover due to their time spent trapped in the ice age. Resources were scarce and those that were more aggressive survived. Even after being brought back from further devolution during the dark ages they again became overcrowded in Europe. The colonization of the world is an expression of that aggressive and violent behavior. They have somehow convinced the rest of the world that this is a desirable trait.....well at least when they get what they want.

Exhibit A: Entitled white guy upset about perceived lack of resources.

Man killed in Austin after shooting Mexican Consulate - CNN.com

Another Far Right Crazy.