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.
White European culture is the dominant culture across the world. For centuries Whiteness has been held highly. And for centuries, people have wanted to attain whiteness. The whole world has been brainwashed that White is beauty, and superior.
Macmeal or Azbear can step in and challenge this, but I stick by it. That sort of mentality lasted all the way until recent times.
.
Not challenging this at all....just wanted to add that your post looks at a very narrow set of reasons, ignoring at LEAST as many as it hits on.
Those you call 'whites' were only a certain select PART of the 'white' race. Don't know much about anyone's 'cosmetics'..you're probably correct in that MOST groups did give a certain status to 'lightness' as opposed to 'darkness'...in everything, even people's skin. Maybe it's just human nature. In many societies, being "light" meant you didn't spend your days laboring outdoors. It was a 'status symbol' to some degree.
But white people (SOME of them) didn't prevail because of their 'looks'. They prevailed because they just HAPPENED to stumble upon the earliest ways of organizing into large, world-class organizations. THey did THAT by leaving their 'tribal' connections behind, and organizing in ways that required they 'trust in strangers' and form alliances. Combined with cutting-edge technology, (which they shared and traded with each other), this gave them the 'leverage' to do what they did.
The Chinese and Egyptians and (East)Indians had many innovations, too...but they just never got over the 'hump' of their cultures long enough to 'head out into the world".
When SOME 'whites" landed on the future US East Coast, they ALSO 'cooked up' a novel form of government (first in modern times)..."of, for, and by the people". It was unheard of then...it was a 'bold experiment'...and it is STILL rare around the world.
That "technology", combined with that "government BY the people" is what allowed a 'middle class' to eventually form. It's what MOST of the world now aspires to...a 'decent' life for MOST citizens, not just society's 'privileged'. The 'middle class', now taken as 'normal', is an American invention.
Whites didn't "do what they did" because they're inherently evil...and others didn't REFRAIN from dominating the world because they were "too nice" to. It just so happens that a certain small segment of Whites was able to make those first inroads into eventually achieving a "First World" society....and that society had the 'muscle' to leverage its power and dominate the world.
If "others" had dominated the world, instead of whites, would things have been different? Obviously, yes. But we'll never know.
If the USA had NOT been founded by "British Whites" (a very TINY segment of English society)....but instead had been started by Egyptian Muslims...or Italian Catholics....or Nigerians...or Hindus...or Chinese...or Germans..would the US have the multiracial society, the prosperity, and the freedoms it has today? Maybe...but I doubt it.
The US was founded by a tiny group of English puritans. Mexico was founded by Spanish Catholics. Seems to me these two 'next-door neighbors' turned out VERY differently, though they share the same 'air'. Coming from THIS Catholic, I have to say I'm sure glad "we" didn't get here first.....we just don't "do" governments very well...Those 'puritans' may not have been a 'barrel of fun', but they apparently knew how to start a pretty decent society. The "best"? Well, so far, yes.
Not challenging this at all....just wanted to add that your post looks at a very narrow set of reasons, ignoring at LEAST as many as it hits on.
Those you call 'whites' were only a certain select PART of the 'white' race. Don't know much about anyone's 'cosmetics'..you're probably correct in that MOST groups did give a certain status to 'lightness' as opposed to 'darkness'...in everything, even people's skin. Maybe it's just human nature. In many societies, being "light" meant you didn't spend your days laboring outdoors. It was a 'status symbol' to some degree.
But white people (SOME of them) didn't prevail because of their 'looks'. They prevailed because they just HAPPENED to stumble upon the earliest ways of organizing into large, world-class organizations. THey did THAT by leaving their 'tribal' connections behind, and organizing in ways that required they 'trust in strangers' and form alliances. Combined with cutting-edge technology, (which they shared and traded with each other), this gave them the 'leverage' to do what they did.
The Chinese and Egyptians and (East)Indians had many innovations, too...but they just never got over the 'hump' of their cultures long enough to 'head out into the world".
When SOME 'whites" landed on the future US East Coast, they ALSO 'cooked up' a novel form of government (first in modern times)..."of, for, and by the people". It was unheard of then...it was a 'bold experiment'...and it is STILL rare around the world.
That "technology", combined with that "government BY the people" is what allowed a 'middle class' to eventually form. It's what MOST of the world now aspires to...a 'decent' life for MOST citizens, not just society's 'privileged'. The 'middle class', now taken as 'normal', is an American invention.
Whites didn't "do what they did" because they're inherently evil...and others didn't REFRAIN from dominating the world because they were "too nice" to. It just so happens that a certain small segment of Whites was able to make those first inroads into eventually achieving a "First World" society....and that society had the 'muscle' to leverage its power and dominate the world.
If "others" had dominated the world, instead of whites, would things have been different? Obviously, yes. But we'll never know.
If the USA had NOT been founded by "British Whites" (a very TINY segment of English society)....but instead had been started by Egyptian Muslims...or Italian Catholics....or Nigerians...or Hindus...or Chinese...or Germans..would the US have the multiracial society, the prosperity, and the freedoms it has today? Maybe...but I doubt it.
The US was founded by a tiny group of English puritans. Mexico was founded by Spanish Catholics. Seems to me these two 'next-door neighbors' turned out VERY differently, though they share the same 'air'. Coming from THIS Catholic, I have to say I'm sure glad "we" didn't get here first.....we just don't "do" governments very well...Those 'puritans' may not have been a 'barrel of fun', but they apparently knew how to start a pretty decent society. The "best"? Well, so far, yes.
Mexico was heavily populated when it was conquered(compared to what would become the U.S.).
The Spaniards enslaved the indians, raped them, converted them. Stole its gold, used the land.
THe English on the other hand came in families, and pretty much just commited genocide on the indians there.
That may have caused the difference in direction. THe Spanish didnt really annihilate the native people, they just enslaved them.
Later on the Indians and Mestizos, led my the Criollos overthrew the Spanish.
By the time the British/Americans were done with their westward Manifest Destiny inspired takeover of what would become the United States, there were no more indians left to overthrown them.
Thats a little a bit of a difference in what happened.
What that has to do with what I was talking about? not sure.
Thats a little a bit of a difference in what happened.
What that has to do with what I was talking about? not sure.
What you were talking about was whites dominating the world. You made some points....I added a few others.
The history of the human race is one continuous story of domination and conquest. Other than that, I don't see your point. ALL of us are the descendants of both victims and victimizers. The Indians of Mexico were raped, enslaved, and mistreated by the Spaniards. They were also raped, enslaved, and mistreatd (and occasionally 'sacrificed') by each other.
As you say, what any of this has to do with the present, I'm not sure. Unless you were ever personally enslaved, raped, or brutalized, I'm not sure what your point is. Your ancestors had it rough? I know how you feel. So did mine.
You've hit on an interesting topic to me, why the U.S. and Canada, versus Mexico and Latin America turned into such profoundly different socio-economic systems despite all initially being colonized by Europeans roughly around the same eras in history. I've often suspected the underlying rationales of initial global exploration came into play. Emigrants to North American came to fashion new lives from vast lands of resources to be worked, whereas Mexico, Central and South America appealed to explorers interested in gold, a form of Christianity immediately descended from the rigidity of the Spanish Inquisition, and patriarchal forms of governing i.e., the king has devine right, the populace doesn't count.
In my neighborhood watch here in Los Angeles, I deal with so many people who weren't born in this country. They have a difficult time understanding the American notion of working together with "strangers" in order to improve the lot of everyone. Even enlightened self-interest, that helping everyone around them for a particular civic project helps themselves in the process, needs to be explained. Their attitudes vary from distrust (to hatred) of anyone outside their extended family/country of origin to, fortunately, occasional curiosity about how to be pro-active in a genuine democracy.
I therefore am not surprised at socio-economic evolution (or devolution) in my native Los Angeles, where foreign born populaces think it "normal" for bad situations to get worse insofar as the downward cycle more resembles their countries of origin. Our African-American populations are Americans, and grounded in our traditions of democracy (the real kind. Not the Dubya kind. Boy, has he devalued that word.)
You've hit on an interesting topic to me, why the U.S. and Canada, versus Mexico and Latin America turned into such profoundly different socio-economic systems despite all initially being colonized by Europeans roughly around the same eras in history. I've often suspected the underlying rationales of initial global exploration came into play. Emigrants to North American came to fashion new lives from vast lands of resources to be worked, whereas Mexico, Central and South America appealed to explorers interested in gold, a form of Christianity immediately descended from the rigidity of the Spanish Inquisition, and patriarchal forms of governing i.e., the king has devine right, the populace doesn't count.
In my neighborhood watch here in Los Angeles, I deal with so many people who weren't born in this country. They have a difficult time understanding the American notion of working together with "strangers" in order to improve the lot of everyone. Even enlightened self-interest, that helping everyone around them for a particular civic project helps themselves in the process, needs to be explained. Their attitudes vary from distrust (to hatred) of anyone outside their extended family/country of origin to, fortunately, occasional curiosity about how to be pro-active in a genuine democracy.
I therefore am not surprised at socio-economic evolution (or devolution) in my native Los Angeles, where foreign born populaces think it "normal" for bad situations to get worse insofar as the downward cycle more resembles their countries of origin. Our African-American populations are Americans, and grounded in our traditions of democracy (the real kind. Not the Dubya kind. Boy, has he devalued that word.)
To run with your ball further:
In just our lifetimes (both of us are in our 50's): Ireland, Italy and Spain went from de facto Third World to solid First World status within 2 generations along with S Korea and Taiwan.
There was a confluence of factors at work which led to a 'tipping point' going from anarchy in the above countries to the Rule of Law-----and, prosperity took root then.
The common thread I can see is the equivalent of a solid 8th grade education for both men and especially women.
Look at our American Blacks: the dramatic changes in their myriad cultures since WW II---------even before the battles to dismantle Jim Crow. Yes; there was some significant backsliding in the 1980-early 1990's (crack cocaine wars come to mind)......yet Oprah, Colin Powell became icons among many others. Which leads up to Barack Obama who has a better than 50/50 chance at winning the 2008 Presidential election. Can someone say: no more glass ceiling here if he wins?
You've hit on an interesting topic to me, why the U.S. and Canada, versus Mexico and Latin America turned into such profoundly different socio-economic systems despite all initially being colonized by Europeans roughly around the same eras in history. I've often suspected the underlying rationales of initial global exploration came into play. Emigrants to North American came to fashion new lives from vast lands of resources to be worked, whereas Mexico, Central and South America appealed to explorers interested in gold, a form of Christianity immediately descended from the rigidity of the Spanish Inquisition, and patriarchal forms of governing i.e., the king has devine right, the populace doesn't count.
In my neighborhood watch here in Los Angeles, I deal with so many people who weren't born in this country. They have a difficult time understanding the American notion of working together with "strangers" in order to improve the lot of everyone. Even enlightened self-interest, that helping everyone around them for a particular civic project helps themselves in the process, needs to be explained. Their attitudes vary from distrust (to hatred) of anyone outside their extended family/country of origin to, fortunately, occasional curiosity about how to be pro-active in a genuine democracy.
I therefore am not surprised at socio-economic evolution (or devolution) in my native Los Angeles, where foreign born populaces think it "normal" for bad situations to get worse insofar as the downward cycle more resembles their countries of origin. Our African-American populations are Americans, and grounded in our traditions of democracy (the real kind. Not the Dubya kind. Boy, has he devalued that word.)
VERY good post. You seem well-versed in the fine points....One other thing that comes to mind, is that the Spanish conquest of the New World came, by-and-large, a century or so EARLIER than the English. Yet at the same time, England was already experiencing the beginnings of modern-day notions of 'the worth of the individual', and 'freedom', while Spain was still locked firmly in the "dark ages" for some time thereafter.
Thus there was a case where a Medieval Spain began its 'adventures' a good century before a more 'modern' England did....giving this chronological 'century or so', the practical effect of probably SEVERAL centuries of 'difference' in the two societies. This ALONE made a large difference in how they 'saw' their mission...along with the huge difference in the native populations, and the huge difference in the stated 'purpose' for which the two colonizing powers supposedly came.
Once more, your post illustrates my oft-repeated line that, although we THINK we'd like to be multicultural, and we like to THINK that 'anyone can make it here', in fact, we DO have a culture and a 'system' here, and that's why life here 'works'...and not just anyone can 'plug in' to it....there are concepts which must be learned, and values which must be adopted, if we're to remain multiracial, yet free, and still be a prosperous society. You aren't "born with it"...it must be learned.....and that's pretty hard to do when you arrive here illegally- PARTICULARLY in view of the fact that one thing all 'new arrivals' have to learn is that this society depends for its existence, on a willingness for ALL of us to more-or-less voluntarily agree to submit ourselves to living within the law. That's what "makes all this possible", after all.
BTW...your middle paragraph was GOLD. The very essence of what makes a "First World culture" possible, and why it's SO elusive to so many people around the world. Money can't buy it...it's an attitude, and a way of life, that must be internalized. Give a desert tribesman 50 Billion Dollars, and all you've got is a very wealthy desert tribesman.
"Trust in strangers" is the absolute essence of what it takes to run a modern, world-class society. That's why things "work" here, and that's why you can't "bring democracy" to "good people". It's a way of thinking and looking at life that can't be forced. You post illustrates well the everyday ways in which this fact affects how we 'get along'....or how we fail to.
Once more, your post illustrates my oft-repeated line that, although we THINK we'd like to be multicultural, and we like to THINK that 'anyone can make it here', in fact, we DO have a culture and a 'system' here, and that's why life here 'works'...and not just anyone can 'plug in' to it....there are concepts which must be learned, and values which must be adopted, if we're to remain multiracial, yet free, and still be a prosperous society. You aren't "born with it"...it must be learned.....and that's pretty hard to do when you arrive here illegally- PARTICULARLY in view of the fact that one thing all 'new arrivals' have to learn is that this society depends for its existence, on a willingness for ALL of us to more-or-less voluntarily agree to submit ourselves to living within the law. That's what "makes all this possible", after all.
BTW...your middle paragraph was GOLD. The very essence of what makes a "First World culture" possible, and why it's SO elusive to so many people around the world. Money can't buy it...it's an attitude, and a way of life, that must be internalized. Give a desert tribesman 50 Billion Dollars, and all you've got is a very wealthy desert tribesman.
This is soooo true….and precisely why so many people, when removed from impoverished environments, often replicate them. I am reminded of a “new” all-brick development built back in the 70’s in a DC suburb. Within a few short years, crime was rampant and the tenants had demolished the place – holes in the walls, debris everywhere; and according to reported accounts -- some had even ripped the toilets from the floor! The development was eventually razed. They obviously had no appreciation for “nice” things. Rather, preferring to live in the squalor they had grown accustomed to. Of course, this is not always the case. However, it is, more often than not.
This is soooo true….and precisely why so many people, when removed from impoverished environments, often replicate them. I am reminded of a “new” all-brick development built back in the 70’s in a DC suburb. Within a few short years, crime was rampant and the tenants had demolished the place – holes in the walls, debris everywhere; and according to reported accounts -- some had even ripped the toilets from the floor! The development was eventually razed. They obviously had no appreciation for “nice” things. Rather, preferring to live in the squalor they had grown accustomed to. Of course, this is not always the case. However, it is, more often than not.
Uh huh------and; 'race/ethnicity' have nothing to do with it.
The word culture or the lack thereof comes to mind.
OTOH: if all of the bad people disappeared from Anacostia and a group of highly educated Nigerians moved in-----watch that enclave become a very pleasant, cultured place to visit and live in. We are discussing the same basic race here to boot.
Uh huh------and; 'race/ethnicity' have nothing to do with it.
The word culture or the lack thereof comes to mind.
OTOH: if all of the bad people disappeared from Anacostia and a group of highly educated Nigerians moved in-----watch that enclave become a very pleasant, cultured place to visit and live in. We are discussing the same basic race here to boot.
Whats going on in L.A is very sad indeed. Hispanic gangs see Blacks as a threat against them hence the "ethnic cleansing" that has been going on. Let us not forget the taboo between Mexicans and Blacks. I have heard many times "What?!?! How can you date a Black person!" But when a Mexican is dating a White person the tables are turned completely. I also don't think the Hip-hop/rap culture is helping blacks anymore than it is already.
from my experience since the beginning of the mexican movement i notice most mexican try to impress the whites i remember when i was working for this construction company the white man was usually the boss an when the white man talk about the black while they are working the mexicans try to fit in,its nothing new.my dad is mexican an he always told me black an mexican r the same never be a cocanut.its just the world everyone think 4 u 2 be someone u have to be excepted by the whites but thats nothing white ppl will date any 1
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.
