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.
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 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.
You miss the point. The point is that if that was their chief concern they would lack intelligence and would have never become advanced. They would have spent the time devoted to pursuit of intelligence into developing better weaponry. They would have taken advantage of their ability to produce steel and used it create those weapons centuries before Europe did. Those same African cultures would have never developed great intellectual civilizations if they had been insecure cultures built on an inferiority complex. The greatest tenets of intelligence and advancement came from Africa and provided a model for Europe.
What you seem to miss is that Africans from various cultures could have done what whites did. They simple choose not to and instead honored wisdom over violence. They instructed Europe in civilization not once but twice. There may be more instances since you cant really trust history written by white people.
No such thing. All cultures have at some point expanded violently. Some do it in response to being attacked. Others do it to unify an area. No culture but white culture has made the attempt to dominant the entire world violently on a supposed theory of superiority. The reason the superiority angle is pushed is because of an inferiority complex. In doing so white culture suffered the inability to achieve intellectual status as pioneers of high culture, science, etc. To this day they remain a lost culture.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.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.
You miss the point. The point is that if that was their chief concern they would lack intelligence and would have never become advanced. They would have spent the time devoted to pursuit of intelligence into developing better weaponry. They would have taken advantage of their ability to produce steel and used it create those weapons centuries before Europe did. Those same African cultures would have never developed great intellectual civilizations if they had been insecure cultures built on an inferiority complex. The greatest tenets of intelligence and advancement came from Africa and provided a model for Europe.
What you seem to miss is that Africans from various cultures could have done what whites did. They simple choose not to and instead honored wisdom over violence. They instructed Europe in civilization not once but twice. There may be more instances since you cant really trust history written by white people.
Ok, fine. I'm just asking for an example of an advanced culture that did not aim to expand their empire via violence as the "white man" did. Give me an example of what you speak. I have already conceded that cultures influence other cultures. I just want to know of a specific example of such a harmoniously intelligent culture that did not attempt to expand via violence. Please, lets hear it.
Well...my Anthropology professor in college, who specialized in native American Archaeology, once stated there were almost 300,000 Native Americans. How they came to that, I don't know.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.
No such thing. All cultures have at some point expanded violently. Some do it in response to being attacked. Others do it to unify an area. No culture but white culture has made the attempt to dominant the entire world violently on a supposed theory of superiority. The reason the superiority angle is pushed is because of an inferiority complex. In doing so white culture suffered the inability to achieve intellectual status as pioneers of high culture, science, etc. To this day they remain a lost culture.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.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.
You miss the point. The point is that if that was their chief concern they would lack intelligence and would have never become advanced. They would have spent the time devoted to pursuit of intelligence into developing better weaponry. They would have taken advantage of their ability to produce steel and used it create those weapons centuries before Europe did. Those same African cultures would have never developed great intellectual civilizations if they had been insecure cultures built on an inferiority complex. The greatest tenets of intelligence and advancement came from Africa and provided a model for Europe.
What you seem to miss is that Africans from various cultures could have done what whites did. They simple choose not to and instead honored wisdom over violence. They instructed Europe in civilization not once but twice. There may be more instances since you cant really trust history written by white people.
Ok, fine. I'm just asking for an example of an advanced culture that did not aim to expand their empire via violence as the "white man" did. Give me an example of what you speak. I have already conceded that cultures influence other cultures. I just want to know of a specific example of such a harmoniously intelligent culture that did not attempt to expand via violence. Please, lets hear it.
Well...my Anthropology professor in college, who specialized in native American Archaeology, once stated there were almost 300,000 Native Americans. How they came to that, I don't know.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.
My other thoughts are derived from Meacham's "American Lion", which includes the words of Andrew Jackson, and why he was a notorious indian fighter.
Back then, on the Tennessee frontier, they had lot's of peacful tribes that seemed to coexist, except for the Creek indians, who looted, and plundered both European settlements, and other "peaceful" tribes. He had no problem coexisting with indians that didn't cause a rukus, but he shaped the policies that wound up eradicating so many indians intentionally, and unintentionally. The people I've read about who tried to Christianize indians had good intentions relevant to those days. Indian cultures were different from one to the next, and so were Europeans in how they reacted to them.
I don't find significant amounts of "bad guys" on either side...like the "movies" would have you believe.
No such thing. All cultures have at some point expanded violently. Some do it in response to being attacked. Others do it to unify an area. No culture but white culture has made the attempt to dominant the entire world violently on a supposed theory of superiority. The reason the superiority angle is pushed is because of an inferiority complex. In doing so white culture suffered the inability to achieve intellectual status as pioneers of high culture, science, etc. To this day they remain a lost culture.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.
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.
You miss the point. The point is that if that was their chief concern they would lack intelligence and would have never become advanced. They would have spent the time devoted to pursuit of intelligence into developing better weaponry. They would have taken advantage of their ability to produce steel and used it create those weapons centuries before Europe did. Those same African cultures would have never developed great intellectual civilizations if they had been insecure cultures built on an inferiority complex. The greatest tenets of intelligence and advancement came from Africa and provided a model for Europe.
What you seem to miss is that Africans from various cultures could have done what whites did. They simple choose not to and instead honored wisdom over violence. They instructed Europe in civilization not once but twice. There may be more instances since you cant really trust history written by white people.
Ok, fine. I'm just asking for an example of an advanced culture that did not aim to expand their empire via violence as the "white man" did. Give me an example of what you speak. I have already conceded that cultures influence other cultures. I just want to know of a specific example of such a harmoniously intelligent culture that did not attempt to expand via violence. Please, lets hear it.
Excellent, so no one is above the violent conflict principle. However, it was only the scope of the violence that is in debate. That scope was heavily dependent on technological advancement. Ergo, those who were technologically advanced could expand wider and more violently. To think that African cultures, had they been more advanced than white western civilization, wouldn't have done the same if the shoe was on the other foot is to merely speculate facts not in evidence. As you have pointed out: They did what they could to expand with the technology they had. The reason Africa is what it is today is because they lack today as they have in the past; a culture that promotes a more technologically advanced civilization.
No race but whites made violence the cornerstone of their culture.Every race has been violent but white folks brought you the technology to bitch about it online.
Religious beliefs, Nazism, the "Cultural Revolution" in China, and the warring culture of Mongol hordes are all cultural attributes that played a large role in their actions. Although, what you say is relevant to deconstructing the veracity of DAWS's claim that whites are the most violent.
Well ok. maybe.
In my opinion violence in a historical context is merely a political measure of achieving certain means or profits.
And not a cultural attribute.
Gold for the Spaniards, Slaves for the Romans, Conquest for the Jihadis and Crusaders and on and on.
It is not as much as fullfilling a certain notion of cultural destiny or comitment as about gaining a benefit through conflict.
That is in my opinion the main reason for conflict in history.
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.
Religious beliefs, Nazism, the "Cultural Revolution" in China, and the warring culture of Mongol hordes are all cultural attributes that played a large role in their actions. Although, what you say is relevant to deconstructing the veracity of DAWS's claim that whites are the most violent.
Well ok. maybe.
In my opinion violence in a historical context is merely a political measure of achieving certain means or profits.
And not a cultural attribute.
Gold for the Spaniards, Slaves for the Romans, Conquest for the Jihadis and Crusaders and on and on.
It is not as much as fullfilling a certain notion of cultural destiny or comitment as about gaining a benefit through conflict.
That is in my opinion the main reason for conflict in history.
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.
Ya cause after all all those black tribes in Africa were so peaceful and unwarlike right?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
Exactly.Ya cause after all all those black tribes in Africa were so peaceful and unwarlike right?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
You're a liar.No race but whites made violence the cornerstone of their culture.
Is that why they warred on each other and sold the slaves to White men? Is that why to this day different tribes murder each other? Retard.Exactly.Ya cause after all all those black tribes in Africa were so peaceful and unwarlike right?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
No such thing. All cultures have at some point expanded violently. Some do it in response to being attacked. Others do it to unify an area. No culture but white culture has made the attempt to dominant the entire world violently on a supposed theory of superiority. The reason the superiority angle is pushed is because of an inferiority complex. In doing so white culture suffered the inability to achieve intellectual status as pioneers of high culture, science, etc. To this day they remain a lost culture.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.
You miss the point. The point is that if that was their chief concern they would lack intelligence and would have never become advanced. They would have spent the time devoted to pursuit of intelligence into developing better weaponry. They would have taken advantage of their ability to produce steel and used it create those weapons centuries before Europe did. Those same African cultures would have never developed great intellectual civilizations if they had been insecure cultures built on an inferiority complex. The greatest tenets of intelligence and advancement came from Africa and provided a model for Europe.
What you seem to miss is that Africans from various cultures could have done what whites did. They simple choose not to and instead honored wisdom over violence. They instructed Europe in civilization not once but twice. There may be more instances since you cant really trust history written by white people.
Ok, fine. I'm just asking for an example of an advanced culture that did not aim to expand their empire via violence as the "white man" did. Give me an example of what you speak. I have already conceded that cultures influence other cultures. I just want to know of a specific example of such a harmoniously intelligent culture that did not attempt to expand via violence. Please, lets hear it.
Excellent, so no one is above the violent conflict principle. However, it was only the scope of the violence that is in debate. That scope was heavily dependent on technological advancement. Ergo, those who were technologically advanced could expand wider and more violently. To think that African cultures, had they been more advanced than white western civilization, wouldn't have done the same if the shoe was on the other foot is to merely speculate facts not in evidence. As you have pointed out: They did what they could to expand with the technology they had. The reason Africa is what it is today is because they lack today as they have in the past; a culture that promotes a more technologically advanced civilization.
You keep missing the point. No doubt because you are genetically a member of the group that is deeply insecure and violent. Whites were violent prior to becoming technologically advanced in warfare. That violence and insecurity was the driving factor to them becoming adept at war and mayhem. So no its not the scope. Its the main factor in their culture. Thats the key. Africans for example were way more advanced and did not make it a main factor in their cultures. You forget. Whites have only dominated the world for a very short time (relatively speaking) and the narrative since roughly 1492. Prior to that world was dominated for millennium by people of color. Most of that time the people were primarily Black Africans. Since 1492 we have been going backwards in regards to reaching for intellectual enlightenment.
Is that why they warred on each other and sold the slaves to White men? Is that why to this day different tribes murder each other? Retard.Exactly.Ya cause after all all those black tribes in Africa were so peaceful and unwarlike right?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
That must mean you have absolutely no refutation available. i would do that if I was stuck as well.No such thing. All cultures have at some point expanded violently. Some do it in response to being attacked. Others do it to unify an area. No culture but white culture has made the attempt to dominant the entire world violently on a supposed theory of superiority. The reason the superiority angle is pushed is because of an inferiority complex. In doing so white culture suffered the inability to achieve intellectual status as pioneers of high culture, science, etc. To this day they remain a lost culture.You miss the point. The point is that if that was their chief concern they would lack intelligence and would have never become advanced. They would have spent the time devoted to pursuit of intelligence into developing better weaponry. They would have taken advantage of their ability to produce steel and used it create those weapons centuries before Europe did. Those same African cultures would have never developed great intellectual civilizations if they had been insecure cultures built on an inferiority complex. The greatest tenets of intelligence and advancement came from Africa and provided a model for Europe.
What you seem to miss is that Africans from various cultures could have done what whites did. They simple choose not to and instead honored wisdom over violence. They instructed Europe in civilization not once but twice. There may be more instances since you cant really trust history written by white people.
Ok, fine. I'm just asking for an example of an advanced culture that did not aim to expand their empire via violence as the "white man" did. Give me an example of what you speak. I have already conceded that cultures influence other cultures. I just want to know of a specific example of such a harmoniously intelligent culture that did not attempt to expand via violence. Please, lets hear it.
Excellent, so no one is above the violent conflict principle. However, it was only the scope of the violence that is in debate. That scope was heavily dependent on technological advancement. Ergo, those who were technologically advanced could expand wider and more violently. To think that African cultures, had they been more advanced than white western civilization, wouldn't have done the same if the shoe was on the other foot is to merely speculate facts not in evidence. As you have pointed out: They did what they could to expand with the technology they had. The reason Africa is what it is today is because they lack today as they have in the past; a culture that promotes a more technologically advanced civilization.
You keep missing the point. No doubt because you are genetically a member of the group that is deeply insecure and violent. Whites were violent prior to becoming technologically advanced in warfare. That violence and insecurity was the driving factor to them becoming adept at war and mayhem. So no its not the scope. Its the main factor in their culture. Thats the key. Africans for example were way more advanced and did not make it a main factor in their cultures. You forget. Whites have only dominated the world for a very short time (relatively speaking) and the narrative since roughly 1492. Prior to that world was dominated for millennium by people of color. Most of that time the people were primarily Black Africans. Since 1492 we have been going backwards in regards to reaching for intellectual enlightenment.
I will let that unfounded statement stand on its own merits.
As always your points are deflections once I shred your argument. The point is and has always been that no race except whites have attempted world domination. I have admitted there has and always be violence. The difference is the white culture bases its foundation on it whereas other cultures have historically resorted to violence as a last resort.Is that why they warred on each other and sold the slaves to White men? Is that why to this day different tribes murder each other? Retard.Exactly.Ya cause after all all those black tribes in Africa were so peaceful and unwarlike right?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
Yeah, I made that point to him already. His response was "You don't get it."
STFU, you can't even spell accurately enough to be allowed in the company of adults.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.
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.
WTF is a Skythian?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.
