Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Indeed, conflict is a great motivator for innovation.
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.
Sometimes the answere to that is so simplistic it fucking blows ones mind.
In case of the Mongols it is the recursive bow.
Until then people in Asia and Europe only had long bows and short bows which couldnt penetrate thik armour.
With the exception of the crossbow, which took ages to load and couldnt be fired from horseback.
The recursive bow could unleash enought force with so little effort that the chainmail armours and steel plated cuirasses of the medieval knights and arabian warriors were renderd useless.
Indeed, conflict is a great motivator for innovation.
Absolutly. Besides the incentive being profit and benefit I guess technology should also be added.
The phalanx formation made hellenic conquest of Anatolia, Syria, Egypt, Mesopotamia, Persia and Bactria possible.
The new "Vorderlader" rifle made Prussias military so successfull in the late 19th century.
Better tech - less risk.
But technological advancement must be received in an environment that will foster and influence it. Conflict is merely and influence on culture.
Not always.
Sometimes it happens by chance, like with the mongols, who in comparision to those they defeated were rather primitive.
Sometimes it is also money, like the O Neill rebellion in ireland where Spanish and irish troops outnumberd the English, but were crushed because the English could afford better cavalry saddles for their lancers.
Indeed, conflict is a great motivator for innovation.
Which "conflict" motivated the greatest expansion of the economy through innovation in the 1990's?
It was the cessation of the Cold War and the need for investors to find other avenues of growth that resulted in the Dot Com boom.
So the absence of conflict can be an even greater motivator for innovation.
Indeed, conflict is a great motivator for innovation.
Which "conflict" motivated the greatest expansion of the economy through innovation in the 1990's?
It was the cessation of the Cold War and the need for investors to find other avenues of growth that resulted in the Dot Com boom.
So the absence of conflict can be an even greater motivator for innovation.
Sometimes the answere to that is so simplistic it fucking blows ones mind.
In case of the Mongols it is the recursive bow.
Until then people in Asia and Europe only had long bows and short bows which couldnt penetrate thik armour.
With the exception of the crossbow, which took ages to load and couldnt be fired from horseback.
The recursive bow could unleash enought force with so little effort that the chainmail armours and steel plated cuirasses of the medieval knights and arabian warriors were renderd useless.
Indeed, conflict is a great motivator for innovation.
Absolutly. Besides the incentive being profit and benefit I guess technology should also be added.
The phalanx formation made hellenic conquest of Anatolia, Syria, Egypt, Mesopotamia, Persia and Bactria possible.
The new "Vorderlader" rifle made Prussias military so successfull in the late 19th century.
Better tech - less risk.
But technological advancement must be received in an environment that will foster and influence it. Conflict is merely and influence on culture.
Not always.
Sometimes it happens by chance, like with the mongols, who in comparision to those they defeated were rather primitive.
Sometimes it is also money, like the O Neill rebellion in ireland where Spanish and irish troops outnumberd the English, but were crushed because the English could afford better cavalry saddles for their lancers.
Indeed, I would hate to get into the chicken and the egg argument, but the society both the Mongols and the English created fostered wealth and/or innovation.
looks like your getting your ass handed to you on this thread as well as the other.Indeed, conflict is a great motivator for innovation.
Which "conflict" motivated the greatest expansion of the economy through innovation in the 1990's?
It was the cessation of the Cold War and the need for investors to find other avenues of growth that resulted in the Dot Com boom.
So the absence of conflict can be an even greater motivator for innovation.
Indeed, and welcome back. The setbacks are sometime more important than the successes. Failure is likewise necessary for advancement. The true question is that does a culture learn from its failures or does it ignore them. Generally, culturally conservative cultures fail because of failure to change to various conflicts and culturally liberal cultures prosper because they are able to change. Do not get this confused, however, with the way we politically think of those terms.
looks like your getting your ass handed to you on this thread as well as the other.Indeed, conflict is a great motivator for innovation.
Which "conflict" motivated the greatest expansion of the economy through innovation in the 1990's?
It was the cessation of the Cold War and the need for investors to find other avenues of growth that resulted in the Dot Com boom.
So the absence of conflict can be an even greater motivator for innovation.
Indeed, and welcome back. The setbacks are sometime more important than the successes. Failure is likewise necessary for advancement. The true question is that does a culture learn from its failures or does it ignore them. Generally, culturally conservative cultures fail because of failure to change to various conflicts and culturally liberal cultures prosper because they are able to change. Do not get this confused, however, with the way we politically think of those terms.
Indeed, conflict is a great motivator for innovation.
Absolutly. Besides the incentive being profit and benefit I guess technology should also be added.
The phalanx formation made hellenic conquest of Anatolia, Syria, Egypt, Mesopotamia, Persia and Bactria possible.
The new "Vorderlader" rifle made Prussias military so successfull in the late 19th century.
Better tech - less risk.
But technological advancement must be received in an environment that will foster and influence it. Conflict is merely and influence on culture.
Not always.
Sometimes it happens by chance, like with the mongols, who in comparision to those they defeated were rather primitive.
Sometimes it is also money, like the O Neill rebellion in ireland where Spanish and irish troops outnumberd the English, but were crushed because the English could afford better cavalry saddles for their lancers.
Indeed, I would hate to get into the chicken and the egg argument, but the society both the Mongols and the English created fostered wealth and/or innovation.
i am not so sure about inovation.
the khans of the golden horde remaind nomadic, merely blackmailing the russian and polish nobility into giving them food and gold
but they never developed further, let alone left behind their nomadic life style
and in the end the Russians figured out how to defeat nomadic armies and kcked the khans out
Indeed, conflict is a great motivator for innovation.
Which "conflict" motivated the greatest expansion of the economy through innovation in the 1990's?
It was the cessation of the Cold War and the need for investors to find other avenues of growth that resulted in the Dot Com boom.
So the absence of conflict can be an even greater motivator for innovation.
that is not the point
the point is that a nation with e technological advantage has the upper hand on the battlefield.
and not that the battlefield encourages technological advantages.
You also maintained that other people would have done the same but your assertion is false. Other cultures tend to live in harmony with nature. One of the fundamental truths of this world is that white culture is not harmonious. Those cultures that whites scoff at as primitive do retain that harmony. There will always be some sort of conflict. White people generally take it to another level and for totally different reasons. They also build systems to make themselves feel as if this is normal and something to honor.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
I believed I addressed the underpinnings of colonialism/imperialism in the OP, although, it does not entirely disagree with your statement above. It does, however, place it in context.
You also maintained that other people would have done the same but your assertion is false. Other cultures tend to live in harmony with nature. One of the fundamental truths of this world is that white culture is not harmonious. Those cultures that whites scoff at as primitive do retain that harmony. There will always be some sort of conflict. White people generally take it to another level and for totally different reasons. They also build systems to make themselves feel as if this is normal and something to honor.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
I believed I addressed the underpinnings of colonialism/imperialism in the OP, although, it does not entirely disagree with your statement above. It does, however, place it in context.
Indeed one with a belief that a culture that values intelligence over violence, is not advanced is actually proof of my point. Those cultures that attacked or conquered more advanced cultures basically have done what amounts to a degradation of intelligence the world over. Only now are scientists starting to realize the intelligence inherent in the ancient civilizations. Contrary to your belief, white aggression has set the world back probably 1000's of centuries. When you start looking at subjects such as Fractal geometry vs Eulcidean geometry you begin to see the inherent difference in philosophy. Africans and other ancient civilizations used Fractal geometry. The world is just starting to realize how advanced those African civilizations were.You also maintained that other people would have done the same but your assertion is false. Other cultures tend to live in harmony with nature. One of the fundamental truths of this world is that white culture is not harmonious. Those cultures that whites scoff at as primitive do retain that harmony. There will always be some sort of conflict. White people generally take it to another level and for totally different reasons. They also build systems to make themselves feel as if this is normal and something to honor.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
I believed I addressed the underpinnings of colonialism/imperialism in the OP, although, it does not entirely disagree with your statement above. It does, however, place it in context.
This is generally the cultural relativists argument. Where cultural relativism fails, however, is that they generally cannot sustain themselves against other cultures. By comparison, Africans were indeed closer to harmony with nature. However, they could not sustain themselves against invasion from outsiders (Not just white outsiders, but fellow Africans as well). A culture that cannot defend itself is not an advanced culture. We can all enjoy idealism but realism rules the world.
You also maintained that other people would have done the same but your assertion is false. Other cultures tend to live in harmony with nature. One of the fundamental truths of this world is that white culture is not harmonious. Those cultures that whites scoff at as primitive do retain that harmony. There will always be some sort of conflict. White people generally take it to another level and for totally different reasons. They also build systems to make themselves feel as if this is normal and something to honor.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
I believed I addressed the underpinnings of colonialism/imperialism in the OP, although, it does not entirely disagree with your statement above. It does, however, place it in context.
This is generally the cultural relativists argument. Where cultural relativism fails, however, is that they generally cannot sustain themselves against other cultures. By comparison, Africans were indeed closer to harmony with nature. However, they could not sustain themselves against invasion from outsiders (Not just white outsiders, but fellow Africans as well). A culture that cannot defend itself is not an advanced culture. We can all enjoy idealism but realism rules the world.
Indeed one with a belief that a culture that values intelligence over violence is not advanced is actually proof of my point. Those cultures that were overcome by more aggressive cultures basically have done what amounts to a degradation of intelligence the world over. Only now are scientists starting to realize the intelligence inherent in the ancient civilizations. Contrary to your belief, white aggression has set the world back probably 1000's of centuries. When you start looking at subjects such as Fractal geometry vs Eulcidean geometry. Africans and other ancient civilizations used Fractal geometry. The world is just starting to realize how advanced those African civilizations were.
You also maintained that other people would have done the same but your assertion is false. Other cultures tend to live in harmony with nature. One of the fundamental truths of this world is that white culture is not harmonious. Those cultures that whites scoff at as primitive do retain that harmony. There will always be some sort of conflict. White people generally take it to another level and for totally different reasons. They also build systems to make themselves feel as if this is normal and something to honor.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
I believed I addressed the underpinnings of colonialism/imperialism in the OP, although, it does not entirely disagree with your statement above. It does, however, place it in context.
This is generally the cultural relativists argument. Where cultural relativism fails, however, is that they generally cannot sustain themselves against other cultures. By comparison, Africans were indeed closer to harmony with nature. However, they could not sustain themselves against invasion from outsiders (Not just white outsiders, but fellow Africans as well). A culture that cannot defend itself is not an advanced culture. We can all enjoy idealism but realism rules the world.
Indeed one with a belief that a culture that values intelligence over violence is not advanced is actually proof of my point. Those cultures that were overcome by more aggressive cultures basically have done what amounts to a degradation of intelligence the world over. Only now are scientists starting to realize the intelligence inherent in the ancient civilizations. Contrary to your belief, white aggression has set the world back probably 1000's of centuries. When you start looking at subjects such as Fractal geometry vs Eulcidean geometry. Africans and other ancient civilizations used Fractal geometry. The world is just starting to realize how advanced those African civilizations were.
You are correct that much more scholarship needs to be done in order to fairly assess the various civilizations of Africa. But intelligence over violence? A condition for intelligence is the ability to defend yourself. Without that innovation cannot prosper. I might also include that the various innovations brought forth through conflict have had profound cross applications into the advancement of civilian life. Indeed, without competition and conflict innovation is more often than not retarded. Now this is not to say that some African cultures were not advanced for their day, however, they were also out paced by others which is why Africa is among the least advanced continents today.
Without the ability to defend your culture you are not an advanced culture; but one that lives and dies to the benevolence of others. Intelligent cultures therefore seek to defend themselves. Can you name a single culture that did not seek to defend itself?
You also maintained that other people would have done the same but your assertion is false. Other cultures tend to live in harmony with nature. One of the fundamental truths of this world is that white culture is not harmonious. Those cultures that whites scoff at as primitive do retain that harmony. There will always be some sort of conflict. White people generally take it to another level and for totally different reasons. They also build systems to make themselves feel as if this is normal and something to honor.I believed I addressed the underpinnings of colonialism/imperialism in the OP, although, it does not entirely disagree with your statement above. It does, however, place it in context.
This is generally the cultural relativists argument. Where cultural relativism fails, however, is that they generally cannot sustain themselves against other cultures. By comparison, Africans were indeed closer to harmony with nature. However, they could not sustain themselves against invasion from outsiders (Not just white outsiders, but fellow Africans as well). A culture that cannot defend itself is not an advanced culture. We can all enjoy idealism but realism rules the world.
Indeed one with a belief that a culture that values intelligence over violence is not advanced is actually proof of my point. Those cultures that were overcome by more aggressive cultures basically have done what amounts to a degradation of intelligence the world over. Only now are scientists starting to realize the intelligence inherent in the ancient civilizations. Contrary to your belief, white aggression has set the world back probably 1000's of centuries. When you start looking at subjects such as Fractal geometry vs Eulcidean geometry. Africans and other ancient civilizations used Fractal geometry. The world is just starting to realize how advanced those African civilizations were.
You are correct that much more scholarship needs to be done in order to fairly assess the various civilizations of Africa. But intelligence over violence? A condition for intelligence is the ability to defend yourself. Without that innovation cannot prosper. I might also include that the various innovations brought forth through conflict have had profound cross applications into the advancement of civilian life. Indeed, without competition and conflict innovation is more often than not retarded. Now this is not to say that some African cultures were not advanced for their day, however, they were also out paced by others which is why Africa is among the least advanced continents today.
Without the ability to defend your culture you are not an advanced culture; but one that lives and dies to the benevolence of others. Intelligent cultures therefore seek to defend themselves. Can you name a single culture that did not seek to defend itself?
No. Intelligence has nothing to do with defending yourself. Thats why nerds frequently get beat up. What I think you mean is that spending most of your time developing better weapons is a lack of intelligence. You dont have time to attend to intellectual pursuits if your time is spent in an insecure state of fear. This is apparent with white cultures. They are preoccupied with the notion someone is going to attack them. Intelligent cultures seek to teach, discover, and improve the human condition.
You also maintained that other people would have done the same but your assertion is false. Other cultures tend to live in harmony with nature. One of the fundamental truths of this world is that white culture is not harmonious. Those cultures that whites scoff at as primitive do retain that harmony. There will always be some sort of conflict. White people generally take it to another level and for totally different reasons. They also build systems to make themselves feel as if this is normal and something to honor.
This is generally the cultural relativists argument. Where cultural relativism fails, however, is that they generally cannot sustain themselves against other cultures. By comparison, Africans were indeed closer to harmony with nature. However, they could not sustain themselves against invasion from outsiders (Not just white outsiders, but fellow Africans as well). A culture that cannot defend itself is not an advanced culture. We can all enjoy idealism but realism rules the world.
Indeed one with a belief that a culture that values intelligence over violence is not advanced is actually proof of my point. Those cultures that were overcome by more aggressive cultures basically have done what amounts to a degradation of intelligence the world over. Only now are scientists starting to realize the intelligence inherent in the ancient civilizations. Contrary to your belief, white aggression has set the world back probably 1000's of centuries. When you start looking at subjects such as Fractal geometry vs Eulcidean geometry. Africans and other ancient civilizations used Fractal geometry. The world is just starting to realize how advanced those African civilizations were.
You are correct that much more scholarship needs to be done in order to fairly assess the various civilizations of Africa. But intelligence over violence? A condition for intelligence is the ability to defend yourself. Without that innovation cannot prosper. I might also include that the various innovations brought forth through conflict have had profound cross applications into the advancement of civilian life. Indeed, without competition and conflict innovation is more often than not retarded. Now this is not to say that some African cultures were not advanced for their day, however, they were also out paced by others which is why Africa is among the least advanced continents today.
Without the ability to defend your culture you are not an advanced culture; but one that lives and dies to the benevolence of others. Intelligent cultures therefore seek to defend themselves. Can you name a single culture that did not seek to defend itself?
No. Intelligence has nothing to do with defending yourself. Thats why nerds frequently get beat up. What I think you mean is that spending most of your time developing better weapons is a lack of intelligence. You dont have time to attend to intellectual pursuits if your time is spent in an insecure state of fear. This is apparent with white cultures. They are preoccupied with the notion someone is going to attack them. Intelligent cultures seek to teach, discover, and improve the human condition.
You reject the Hobbesian view that without security and rule of law advancement is retarded? That aside an intelligent culture must be able to defend itself to solidify their gains. What intelligent person could think otherwise? Indeed, the very cultures you spoke of attempted to defend themselves against other Africans. Many were successful. The Mali Empire for example. Intelligent people do not open themselves up for invasion. They work diligently against it.
This is generally the cultural relativists argument. Where cultural relativism fails, however, is that they generally cannot sustain themselves against other cultures. By comparison, Africans were indeed closer to harmony with nature. However, they could not sustain themselves against invasion from outsiders (Not just white outsiders, but fellow Africans as well). A culture that cannot defend itself is not an advanced culture. We can all enjoy idealism but realism rules the world.
Indeed one with a belief that a culture that values intelligence over violence is not advanced is actually proof of my point. Those cultures that were overcome by more aggressive cultures basically have done what amounts to a degradation of intelligence the world over. Only now are scientists starting to realize the intelligence inherent in the ancient civilizations. Contrary to your belief, white aggression has set the world back probably 1000's of centuries. When you start looking at subjects such as Fractal geometry vs Eulcidean geometry. Africans and other ancient civilizations used Fractal geometry. The world is just starting to realize how advanced those African civilizations were.
You are correct that much more scholarship needs to be done in order to fairly assess the various civilizations of Africa. But intelligence over violence? A condition for intelligence is the ability to defend yourself. Without that innovation cannot prosper. I might also include that the various innovations brought forth through conflict have had profound cross applications into the advancement of civilian life. Indeed, without competition and conflict innovation is more often than not retarded. Now this is not to say that some African cultures were not advanced for their day, however, they were also out paced by others which is why Africa is among the least advanced continents today.
Without the ability to defend your culture you are not an advanced culture; but one that lives and dies to the benevolence of others. Intelligent cultures therefore seek to defend themselves. Can you name a single culture that did not seek to defend itself?
No. Intelligence has nothing to do with defending yourself. Thats why nerds frequently get beat up. What I think you mean is that spending most of your time developing better weapons is a lack of intelligence. You dont have time to attend to intellectual pursuits if your time is spent in an insecure state of fear. This is apparent with white cultures. They are preoccupied with the notion someone is going to attack them. Intelligent cultures seek to teach, discover, and improve the human condition.
You reject the Hobbesian view that without security and rule of law advancement is retarded? That aside an intelligent culture must be able to defend itself to solidify their gains. What intelligent person could think otherwise? Indeed, the very cultures you spoke of attempted to defend themselves against other Africans. Many were successful. The Mali Empire for example. Intelligent people do not open themselves up for invasion. They work diligently against it.
Yes i reject the view of the white person named Thomas Hobbes. He is merely developing that system I told you white people are famous for in order to glamorize and legitimatize violence. I would expect most whites you would quote to feel this way. I just reject its silliness out of hand. No an intelligent culture only needs to pass on its intelligence as all cultures come to an end or get absorbed and made better. New ideas come in and change perceptions. Advanced societies understand this inherently.
There is a difference in a culture attempting to defend itself and being preoccupied to the point you are simply a violent culture. White cultures claim to fame is violence. Everything associated with learning and intelligence comes from other cultures. Once white culture gained world wide control you changed the narrative to hide your lack of intellectual achievement. Your current intellectual achievement stands on the shoulders of giants.Indeed one with a belief that a culture that values intelligence over violence is not advanced is actually proof of my point. Those cultures that were overcome by more aggressive cultures basically have done what amounts to a degradation of intelligence the world over. Only now are scientists starting to realize the intelligence inherent in the ancient civilizations. Contrary to your belief, white aggression has set the world back probably 1000's of centuries. When you start looking at subjects such as Fractal geometry vs Eulcidean geometry. Africans and other ancient civilizations used Fractal geometry. The world is just starting to realize how advanced those African civilizations were.
You are correct that much more scholarship needs to be done in order to fairly assess the various civilizations of Africa. But intelligence over violence? A condition for intelligence is the ability to defend yourself. Without that innovation cannot prosper. I might also include that the various innovations brought forth through conflict have had profound cross applications into the advancement of civilian life. Indeed, without competition and conflict innovation is more often than not retarded. Now this is not to say that some African cultures were not advanced for their day, however, they were also out paced by others which is why Africa is among the least advanced continents today.
Without the ability to defend your culture you are not an advanced culture; but one that lives and dies to the benevolence of others. Intelligent cultures therefore seek to defend themselves. Can you name a single culture that did not seek to defend itself?
No. Intelligence has nothing to do with defending yourself. Thats why nerds frequently get beat up. What I think you mean is that spending most of your time developing better weapons is a lack of intelligence. You dont have time to attend to intellectual pursuits if your time is spent in an insecure state of fear. This is apparent with white cultures. They are preoccupied with the notion someone is going to attack them. Intelligent cultures seek to teach, discover, and improve the human condition.
You reject the Hobbesian view that without security and rule of law advancement is retarded? That aside an intelligent culture must be able to defend itself to solidify their gains. What intelligent person could think otherwise? Indeed, the very cultures you spoke of attempted to defend themselves against other Africans. Many were successful. The Mali Empire for example. Intelligent people do not open themselves up for invasion. They work diligently against it.
Yes i reject the view of the white person named Thomas Hobbes. He is merely developing that system I told you white people are famous for in order to glamorize and legitimatize violence. I would expect most whites you would quote to feel this way. I just reject its silliness out of hand. No an intelligent culture only needs to pass on its intelligence as all cultures come to an end or get absorbed and made better. New ideas come in and change perceptions. Advanced societies understand this inherently.
So what advanced African culture did not seek to defend itself? Which advanced major African culture did not invade others?
There is a difference in a culture attempting to defend itself and being preoccupied to the point you are simply a violent culture. White cultures claim to fame is violence. Everything associated with learning and intelligence comes from other cultures. Once white culture gained world wide control you changed the narrative to hide your lack of intellectual achievement. Your current intellectual achievement stands on the shoulders of giants.You are correct that much more scholarship needs to be done in order to fairly assess the various civilizations of Africa. But intelligence over violence? A condition for intelligence is the ability to defend yourself. Without that innovation cannot prosper. I might also include that the various innovations brought forth through conflict have had profound cross applications into the advancement of civilian life. Indeed, without competition and conflict innovation is more often than not retarded. Now this is not to say that some African cultures were not advanced for their day, however, they were also out paced by others which is why Africa is among the least advanced continents today.
Without the ability to defend your culture you are not an advanced culture; but one that lives and dies to the benevolence of others. Intelligent cultures therefore seek to defend themselves. Can you name a single culture that did not seek to defend itself?
No. Intelligence has nothing to do with defending yourself. Thats why nerds frequently get beat up. What I think you mean is that spending most of your time developing better weapons is a lack of intelligence. You dont have time to attend to intellectual pursuits if your time is spent in an insecure state of fear. This is apparent with white cultures. They are preoccupied with the notion someone is going to attack them. Intelligent cultures seek to teach, discover, and improve the human condition.
You reject the Hobbesian view that without security and rule of law advancement is retarded? That aside an intelligent culture must be able to defend itself to solidify their gains. What intelligent person could think otherwise? Indeed, the very cultures you spoke of attempted to defend themselves against other Africans. Many were successful. The Mali Empire for example. Intelligent people do not open themselves up for invasion. They work diligently against it.
Yes i reject the view of the white person named Thomas Hobbes. He is merely developing that system I told you white people are famous for in order to glamorize and legitimatize violence. I would expect most whites you would quote to feel this way. I just reject its silliness out of hand. No an intelligent culture only needs to pass on its intelligence as all cultures come to an end or get absorbed and made better. New ideas come in and change perceptions. Advanced societies understand this inherently.
So what advanced African culture did not seek to defend itself? Which advanced major African culture did not invade others?
There is a difference in a culture attempting to defend itself and being preoccupied to the point you are simply a violent culture. White cultures claim to fame is violence. Everything associated with learning and intelligence comes from other cultures. Once white culture gained world wide control you changed the narrative to hide your lack of intellectual achievement. Your current intellectual achievement stands on the shoulders of giants.No. Intelligence has nothing to do with defending yourself. Thats why nerds frequently get beat up. What I think you mean is that spending most of your time developing better weapons is a lack of intelligence. You dont have time to attend to intellectual pursuits if your time is spent in an insecure state of fear. This is apparent with white cultures. They are preoccupied with the notion someone is going to attack them. Intelligent cultures seek to teach, discover, and improve the human condition.
You reject the Hobbesian view that without security and rule of law advancement is retarded? That aside an intelligent culture must be able to defend itself to solidify their gains. What intelligent person could think otherwise? Indeed, the very cultures you spoke of attempted to defend themselves against other Africans. Many were successful. The Mali Empire for example. Intelligent people do not open themselves up for invasion. They work diligently against it.
Yes i reject the view of the white person named Thomas Hobbes. He is merely developing that system I told you white people are famous for in order to glamorize and legitimatize violence. I would expect most whites you would quote to feel this way. I just reject its silliness out of hand. No an intelligent culture only needs to pass on its intelligence as all cultures come to an end or get absorbed and made better. New ideas come in and change perceptions. Advanced societies understand this inherently.
So what advanced African culture did not seek to defend itself? Which advanced major African culture did not invade others?
All cultures advance in part by the examples set by other cultures. All cultures are influenced by other cultures. Some cultures come out on top. The reason they do is that they were able to win in conflicts against other cultures. Nevertheless, I cannot think of one major relatively advanced African culture that did not aim to expand their empire by means of violence just as the "white man" did.
