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 supremacy" only exists as a concept because the last 500 years of history have been dominated by Europeans. How did that come about?
There is the geography theory, as espoused by Guns, Germs, and Steel. The northern European plain is the nearest large agricultural region to the cradle of civilization, so the theory goes it was bound to become dominant. I generally don't buy this, because China and India were actually more prosperous until about 1500, so why did the geography hand dealt take so long to be played?
There are genetic theories, mostly garbage since genetic diversity within the Homo sapiens out-of-Africa group is small compared to hominid diversity, and yet only one part of this group became Europeans. Also a genetic advantage would have again not waited until 1500 to take hold.
More plausibly, the development of the scientific method is easily shown to be an antecedent of most of Europe's modern advantages, and the scientific method was developed around 1500. That raises the further question of why Europe developed the scientific method, which Christian and classical apologists have played with for quite some time. I think the classicists have more to work with, which raises the question why the ancient Greeks were so advanced. This is a bit of a rabbit hole.
Most compelling to me is the European discovery of the new world. It happened around 1500 as well, and produced fabulous riches for Europeans, as well as acting as a population pressure release valve. I don't think any other civilization has had such a stroke of good fortune befall them as a discovery which triples the amount of land available to you. As to why Europeans were pressed to explore and others weren't, we know the reason is the exorbitant cost of the spice trade as exacted by middle Eastern and Mediterranean middlemen. And the Chinese voyages of exploration were abandoned for petty reasons with world-historical implications.
No Europe did not become globally dominant in around 1500 ad.
There's no point in having a discussion with you. You are not dealing in truth and facts as you portend. You won't even accept the fact that Europeans today have a higher median intelligence and more achievement than the middle east and basically every where else. So what is the point in discussing what people might've been 1000s of years ago? I can admit east Asians and Ashkenazi Jews are probably somewhat more intelligent than Europeans but you can't accept anything positive about Europeans.
There are lots of positive things about Europe, Europeans and European history. Except none of those things have anything to do with genetics.
And how do you know? Are you God? Even in the best possible interpretation of the scientific evidence for your direction, science has not established one way or the other genetics has played a role (though there is evidence genetics has played a role).
I don't even believe you believe what you wrote.
I can't tell if you are deliberately being dense or not .
If genetics is the sole explanation for this then why is it that the Germanic tribes had not invented written language as recently as 2000 years ago ? why were they living in thatch and mud huts when the swarthy mediterraneans were building the parthenon ?
I am not aware of drastic genetic differences between North and South Koreans . Why is one country a developed , affluent society and the other one ... North Korea ?
According to you there should not be a huge difference between the Irish and the Scottish as both of them are " White people " , both "Celtic" populations . Why was one the most literate society in the early modern world and the other a backward agrarian society on the verge of mass starvation ?
I am not aware of a big genetic difference between the North and the South in 19th century US . Why was Massachusetts the seat of learning and industrialization while Alabama a feudal slave society ?
... or not. Acknowledging difference doesn't necessarily mean we need to separate. If we blamed mother nature for our differences, rather than each other, it should become easier to live together.
LOL .... your partner in crime here has just advocated for segregation because of those " immutable " differences after just claiming this is the part of my post he " most disagrees " with.
While I feel sorry for his/her's reading , comprehension and critical thinking skills , I hope this gives you a taste of the dangers inherent in this mode of thinking .
In the end the Moors were expelled from Europe. And I'm talking every last one of them - at least that could be identified as Moors.
So can it really be claimed that the Moors led the way to a civil Europe?
All of the (identifiable) Moors were not expelled from Europe until the early-mid 1600s but the Moorish influence on Europe began 900 years prior. So do you really believe that 800 years of Moorish rule in Europe had zero influence? References to the Moors is present all over Europe from Sicily to the Netherlands in the art of Renaissance masters, in the family crests of many European nobility to the family/surnames (Moore/Moorehead) to the works of Shakespeare.
BTW the Moors were not expelled from Eastern Europe
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.
