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.
How do I know why they called them that? I never heard the term used except negatively. Rather than keep asking me why don't you just tell me and then I'll know.
Europeans, I thought, were related, migration wise to Indians. The languages of Europe are called Indo-European languages after all. So there's some relationship.
I know the OP's question concerns Northern Europeans. I don't deny they've been first violin the last couple of hundred years. However, I think the gap between them and the remainder of the European races is an order of magnitude smaller than the gap between all of them viewed together and the rest of the human races.
Who was it the Greeks stole their culture from? Their philosophers were ground breaking. Euclidean geometry is called that because he invented it. Building techniques were common to many cultures. Druids built stone temples but without having stolen the techniques to do it.
Rome's civilizing influence reached the Germans, Gauls, Britons. They would have to have been idiots not to benefit from it. Hellenic culture reached to the Indus. The Indians undoubtedly learned from it as well. Cultures learn from each other. So?
Weapons have leap-frogged from country to country: Germany has a dandy new weapon in one war only to find France has a better one the next. Sometimes the Cavemen win, sometimes the opposite-of-cavemen win.
I've heard American Indians called Redskin Indians to distinguish them from the India Indian kind but I've never heard of BLACK INDIAN except as an epithet.
What was going on in India and China 500 years ago that was so great? Burying lepers alive, burning wives on their husbands' pyres? I understand they had some great religions, philosophers, mathemticians maybe. The Burmese built some neat temples. Aztecs raised human sacrifice to an art.
Maybe these were great but so were the achievements of Greece and Rome. Greater even. Greek philosophy and maths, Roman engineering, governance and law were peerless.
The Dark Ages ruined a lot but India for sure had its equivalents. I don't think China's story is one of uninterrupted triumph either. The Middle East is mired in the Dark Ages still.
So saying we were #2 or #5 500 years ago isn't entirely accurate. And the real test came when the various civilization contacted each other. In every case one would prevail and one concede and the one that prevailed and prevails still is the West.
So now you are implying that ancient Greece and Rome were "white" civilizations ? Filled with blonde haired blue eyed " aryans " speaking in crisp British accents....
Actually , your username makes a little more sense now. Been watching too many of those hollywood movies have we..? Who do you think is a more accurate description of ancient Egyptians ... Christian Bale or Gerald Butler ?
Look at the busts of any of the ancient Romans and Greeks. What do they remind you of? They don't look African or Oriental, do they? They look like modern Italians, Greeks, and Gauls. i.e., White people.
You are on to something with Troyfan, though.
Geoffrey of Monmouth popularized a tale that in England settled the survivors of ancient Troy. They had been carried off to slavery after the Greeks sacked it. They escaped and after many adventures settled in England and adopted its ancient name of Albion.
It is said he elaborated this legend to strengthen Edward II's (?) claim to the throne in the face of a challenge from Scotia, Queen of Scotland. The Pope bought it and Edward's reign was assured.
There is even a section of Troy named Albia and the Troy High School yearbook is called "The Dardanian", the ancient Greek name for the Trojans.
Let me take you to school on this. You sound like someone who needs a pedantic lecture but I don't have time for that.
- Who do you consider white in your definition of " White race " ?
Jews ? Greeks ? Serbians ? Bosnians ? How about Arabs ?
- When did your ' White race " become " indisputably successful " ?
3300 B.C - There was such a thing called the Indus Valley civilization. Look it up. What was your " White race " doing at that time. Let's fast forward to 500 A.D . What about now ?
Lets move forward another 1000 years . What was your " white race " doing now ?
- You say that Races or people which are more successful than others are " not necessarily " superior . You are right. The rest of your post though is boastful and contradicts this statement.
If you say that Northern Europeans ( Germanic peoples ) have been more successful than others since the mid 18th century , that's about 250 years. Starting from 3300 BC till now , thats more than 5000 years of recorded human history. There have been empires and civilizations at times when Northern Europeans didn't have a written language and were eating cat poop for supper.
Also , if anyone can claim success for the " White race " , it is these Northern europeans. The rest of Europe has not contributed jack-**** to anything. Even off shoots of Western Europe - US ( settled by the english, germans and dutch initially ) , Australia, Canada etc are their achievements.
So finally , the point is that every group of people have been successful from time to time. Every dog has it's day. When China was building the great wall there was no internet around for chinese people to brag about it on.
I think the thing the " white race " has been " most successful " at is blowing it's own trumpet.
Adding to your points, the Whites have been successful only after Roth****** took over..Otherwise the British would still be drinking breakfast tea and eating muffins...
Most of the people here do not even know that the Koreans, Chinese, Japanese and Indians had been kicking dash around for centuries, yet they are called "Asians" in one basket...And all of them proper and conventional wars following the rules of engagement - the basis of all of which had been Sound Religions...It was only after Whites and Mughals/Arabs came, the rules changed.
Look at the busts of any of the ancient Romans and Greeks. What do they remind you of? They don't look African or Oriental, do they? They look like modern Italians, Greeks, and Gauls. i.e., White people.
You are on to something with Troyfan, though.
Geoffrey of Monmouth popularized a tale that in England settled the survivors of ancient Troy. They had been carried off to slavery after the Greeks sacked it. They escaped and after many adventures settled in England and adopted its ancient name of Albion.
It is said he elaborated this legend to strengthen Edward II's (?) claim to the throne in the face of a challenge from Scotia, Queen of Scotland. The Pope bought it and Edward's reign was assured.
There is even a section of Troy named Albia and the Troy High School yearbook is called "The Dardanian", the ancient Greek name for the Trojans.
Well , at-least you're not a " Nordicist" . They claim that only the nordic race is the pure " white " race and classify the Italians and Greeks as Mediterranean peoples ( which they are ). I see no difference between some Italians / Greeks and western asian groups - Turks , lebanese , some Northern Indians etc etc . They all kinda look the same . But then again , Italy has been conquered , settled , resettled so many times that to try and figure out what an Italian looks like is a futile exercise. Northern and southern Italians are visibly different.
And no , you cannot classify Greece and Rome as white anything. These were multiethnic empires where the concept of race did not exist. Anybody could be a Roman. And the Romans despised Germanics until they infiltrated the western roman empire and led to it's downfall eventually leading to the dark ages.
Every group of people have been the top dogs from time to time. The Northern europeans are the last to the civilization game and are currently at the top. They only started having great leaders like Charles Martel and Charlemagne about 1500 years ago and before that were uncivilized wandering tribes with no evidence of any intellectual development. Starting around 1500 A.D though , an intellectual blossoming started with them which has not stopped yet. They also became very interested in the idea of "race" around the mid 19th century. " Thinkers " like - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_de_Gobineau and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madison_Grant shaped these ideas in Western Europe and the U.S.
We'll see what the future brings but it looks like China's going to be the top dog again ( Maybe it already is ).
We can go on forever arguing about this .... so I propose let's stop and agree to disagree.
The question posed in the title begs another question - what exactly is the criteria for being successful? Whites look at themselves and say the criteria is all the things that define white culture. But that is a tautology. The OP is non-white but nevertheless feels that whites get to define what "success" means. Not sure why that is.
In any event, I would say that you should review the question in, say, 1000 years. I imagine the world will look quite different and I would be surprised if whites (if Caucasians still exist as a distinct race and culture) will not be the ones with whatever is deemed at that time to be the ideal, successful, culture. In other words, success is a fleeting concept and therefore not really relevant.
The reson the Northern Europeans were so successful is an obvious one. During the period of their ascendency, their culture were pretty much 100% Christian. That in it's self does not breed success but aspects of it really push success forward. I have long noticed that people who live by fairly strict Christian moral codes do well in any society. Honesty, hard work, learning, respect for authority both civil and spiritual and many many other aspect of a "Christian" society breeds success in all areas of national life.
The reson the Northern Europeans were so successful is an obvious one. During the period of their ascendency, their culture were pretty much 100% Christian. That in it's self does not breed success but aspects of it really push success forward. I have long noticed that people who live by fairly strict Christian moral codes do well in any society. Honesty, hard work, learning, respect for authority both civil and spiritual and many many other aspect of a "Christian" society breeds success in all areas of national life.
Mississippi is the most religious state in the US and it is also the poorest state in the nation. New Hampshire is the least religious state and it has the countries lowest unemployment rate. I don't think Christianity correlates with success. Some of the poorest countries in the world in Africa also has majority christian populations. For example the Central African Republic is over 80% christian and its one of the poorest countries in the world. Haiti is 96% christian and it is the poorest country in the western hemisphere.
Mississippi is the most religious state in the US and it is also the poorest state in the nation. New Hampshire is the least religious state and it has the countries lowest unemployment rate. I don't think Christianity correlates with success. Some of the poorest countries in the world in Africa also has majority christian populations. For example the Central African Republic is over 80% christian and its one of the poorest countries in the world. Haiti is 96% christian and it is the poorest country in the western hemisphere.
I should have made it clear that I was talking about classic Protestant Christianity that was quite Calvinistic in it's nature. The English, Scots, Germans, Dutch, Scandinavians. Some of the RC countries did well also, France, Spain and others. We usually forget the Orthodox Russians also had a very successful empire for a long time.
Where the English, Germans, Danes of various stripes have been successful is in England, Germany and Scandanivia. Or where their descendants make up the great bulk of the population. That's it.
Why? They have fair and honest government. Corruption is rare. Contrast that with South America, Africa and the Middle East where it's a way of life and people who do not enrich themselves in government service are considered fools.
Religion may play a part but Bavaria and Austria are indistinguishable from the rest of Germany in most matters and they are staunchly Catholic. But they have in common fair and honest governments.
Nothing can get done in Africa because money is stolen as quickly as it's made. Look at Brazil, Argentina, Mexico. It's the same there. They have resources Northern Europe could only dream of but they steal the proceeds from their development instead of developing industry and society with them. That's why they're poor.
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.
