Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Leaving aside debates about what exactly constitutes the "anglo race", I would say the relative success is mostly do to its culture. Especially its focus on: 1) democracy government accountability/rule of law 2) capitalism- market or comercial values and 3) education- a valuing of science/ practical knowledge over dogma.
Now of course, the UK is the first and quintessential case of this. But, it really seems to be more about fidelity to these values than any sort of deep cultural inheritance.
Afterall, Japan and Korea have basically followed this to peace and prosperity, while "white christian western nations" like Argentina, Portugal, Greece, Southern Italy, Poland have struggled.
Oh praise the glorious white race huh? Man. Take a look at the track record, even in this country. Fail...
Well, if the white race is considered a failure I’d hate to know what you consider my black race. I can recognize the historical accomplishments of Anglo Saxon people without worshipping them.
With that being said, the current corruptive and developing countries of Russia and most of Eastern Europe have proven that some Anglo saxons still have a long way to go as far as global social progress. I mean, would you really want to live in Ukraine or Serbia?
But at the end of the day, other demographics would benefit greatly by utilizing the blue print laid out by both east Asians and Whites. And by blueprint I mean common principles both have used to largely better themselves and their communities. Rule of law, education, hard work, self-discipline, self- determination, trust in free market capitalism, etc.
Without reading through approximately 260 responses I'll say my piece. White people historically originated from areas with both a stimulating though not harsh climate, and exposure to the ocean. Seafaring peoples tend to look outwards to the world and not inwards. As far as climate goes it gets hot in summer but not unduly so. That's why we call hot periods "heat waves." Similar conditions apply in Japan and parts of China and those people have likewise generated some success. The Roman Empire and the Hebrew civilization reached their peak successes during relatively cool periods as well.
Non-arid parts of the tropics and subtropics are more Edenic. Whatever people needed just grew, with little effort. Little work was needed to create simple structures in which to live. Even in arid climates such as Egypt and Mesopotamia areas that were watered by the Nile, Tigris and Euphrates rivers prospered since the combination of extreme heat and almost unlimited water created a receptive environment for the growth of fruit. My unschooled speculation is that the Garden of Eden was historically it the area where the Tigris and Euphrates merge and create a broad, most delta with temperatures that are rarely below freezing and often over 104° F or 40°C.
Originally Posted by Where Was the Garden of Eden Located?
Most Bible commentaries state that the site of the Garden of Eden was in the Middle East, but what does Scripture actually tell us? Most Bible commentaries state that the site of the Garden of Eden was in the Middle East, situated somewhere near where the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers are today. This is based on the description given in Genesis 2:8–14:
The Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden. . . . Now a river went out of Eden to water the garden, and from there it parted and became four riverheads. The name of the first is Pishon. . . . The name of the second river is Gihon. . . . The name of the third river is Hiddekel [Tigris]. . . . The fourth river is the Euphrates.
These kind of conditions, still prevalent in parts of Africa, on tropical Pacific Islands, in New Guinea and similar lands don't lend themselves to stimulation or development. Thus, the embedded cultures don't breed success in a 20th or 21st Century world.
It's a know fact that there's a difference in IQ between anatomically modern humans. You're not allowed to say this because of PC, but isn't the explanation simply that the higher the IQ, the quicker and more advanced a race develops?
What about the personality trait of "drive?" If the theory that we all originated in an area of Africa is correct then there must have been some difference between the people who left to find new places and those who chose to stay behind.
Or was it simply circumstantial and the changes developed later because of the move?
It's a know fact that there's a difference in IQ between anatomically modern humans. You're not allowed to say this because of PC, but isn't the explanation simply that the higher the IQ, the quicker and more advanced a race develops?
Well..but with a few big caveats are:
1) Social conditions impact IQ scores. IQ scores have risen across time at a far faster rate than can be explained by natural evolution.
2) Variance within groups is a much bigger factor than variance across groups.
3) norms/policies/institions matter far more than genetics. At one point, the middle east was more developed than europe and southern europe was more developed than northern europe. Now the opposite is true. Places in Asia have gone from dirt poor to wealthy in a generation or two. Places in Africa are now growing at rapid rates. Cleary the genetics haven't changed, the policies have.
Broadening Anglo-Saxon to white makes this impossible to answer this because white obviously includes many more peoples than the Anglo-Saxons. None of them were as successful (itself a term with varied meanings) as the Anglo-Saxons. More, none of them were as consequential.
Back in the day when The History Channel actually had historical shows, it ran a series about the barbarian tribes of Europe. Particularly Western and Central Europe. This is its episode on the Anglo-Saxons:
The OP makes a mistake in talking about the *white race*. It is the Anglo-Saxon societal model which is responsible for the success of Anglo-Saxon countries and the people who live in them.
The rule of law in Anglo-Saxon countries is strong and respected. The political flexibility of Anglo-Saxon societies (UK, USA, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand) also gives them their strength. These countries are similarly among the most supportive of the free market when it comes to managing the economy. These elements breed success and are the reason why millions of people around the world want to immigrate to them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
