Europeans - the best race.

[p0ink]

Fuck off.

great argument. what sources did you cite?

 

[WODIN]

The people in china were writing with ink on paper while the people of Europe were buisy carving letters in stone.

 

[dballer]

The people in china were writing with ink on paper while the people of Europe were buisy carving letters in stone.

Very true. and a good point I might add. The people in the east have never been intrested in technology even though they were years ahead of their time. Alot of Chinese medicines that have been around for centuries are only now just being discovered by the rest of the world.

 

[Zirakzigil]

i think you should read what you just wrote and compare it with the title of the thread...

I don't have a problem with interracial marriage. I just think Europeans are better than everyone else. If you want to marry a black guy, go right ahead. I find lots of blacks, latinos, asians, quite beautiful and intelligent.

uhm...maybe you can elaborate more. the byzantine and moslem empires were of different regions of the east right?

and include some dates, that would help distinguish between the two.

http://campus.northpark.edu/history/WebChron/EastEurope/Byzantium.html

So, make up your mind. Are you saying Caucasians are the best race or are you saying Europeans are the best race, and 'race' as defined by modern anthopologists as you've described it, that being that one qualifies as an European based on cultural rather than phsical traits? Now be careful how you answer this, because you've managed to give us many examples of past historical feats which seem to suggest you are making the age-old claim that Caucasians are the best race(antiquated definition). But yet you've just said that you are making your argument based on the cultural definition of European rather than refering to European as a race of people in its antiquated form. If you are making the claim that Europeans, CULTURAL Europeans are the best race, then I suggest you give more up-to-date and pertinent information.

What don't you understand? I will put it in simple terms. Europeans, by my definition, are those that live in geographical Europe (or people whose ancestors were from there). This is coregional with the European culture which, though different in such places as Spain and Sweden, shares simple things: a tradition of technology dating back to the 1500s, a tradition of military dating bach even further, and a tradition of resourcefulness and thought, dating back to ancient Greece. Obviously there is a continuum - for people at the borders, one would have a hard time saying exactly who is European and who is not. I'm not speaking of the 'Caucasian' race - that concept was already largely dropped in anthropological circles by the early 20th century.

Either way, whether you are actually referring to Caucasians or cultural Europeans, I don't think that being inventive, forward-looking, resourceful, and successful qualify an entire group of people as being the 'best' category of human beings.

I think you've just described the Uberman.

I would have to say that being the best human being involves much more than just the technological and sociological feats that have been mentioned.

Being the best human being, perhaps - being the best ethnicity/race/culture (however you want to label it - see my definition above), NO.

I also have to wonder if you are trying to make the antiquated claim that this group of people that you are arguing about possess innate traits which have allowed them to accomplish all that they have without factoring in cultural influences, and access to education and economical resources.

Listen to what you are saying. The Europeans had education and economics not because someone gave it to them (as would have to happen for, say, Africans to have those things today) - but because they developed those themselves! Maybe the Australian Aborigines would have been the most successful race if they had ever used Australia's copper deposits for tools - but they didn't. Maybe the Africans would be the most successful race if they had a tradition of education, but they don't. No one GAVE the Europeans these things - they came about of their own accord. I AM factoring in cultural, educational, and economic influences - the Europeans created them, the Africans didn't, the Native Americans didn't, the Aborigines didn't, the Muslims did but lost them, the Chinese did to a much smaller extent.

I think the reason that no big cities , and therefore big culturesn in africa could evolve was due to the climate which didn´t support big settlements.

I disagree. Some of the largest cities in the world are now in Africa - Lagos, Cairo...and many other large cities - Nairboi, Kampala, etc.

In the few places where the environment able to do that, like Nile or Euphrat & Tigris, the very first of cultures did evolve, when our european ancestors where still clad in furs and throwing stones at each other.
Therefore i don´t think that any conclusions can be drawn from race to genetic superiority.

Yes, the fertile crescent gained technology first - but they didn't use it. And look at those peoples today.

The people in china were writing with ink on paper while the people of Europe were buisy carving letters in stone.

And look how far that got them. Did they take over the entire fucking world? Did they send a man to the moon? Did they develop computers independently of Europe? But anyway, the Chinese are a very intelligent and inventive race - they are a close second.

Very true. and a good point I might add. The people in the east have never been intrested in technology even though they were years ahead of their time. Alot of Chinese medicines that have been around for centuries are only now just being discovered by the rest of the world.

The amount of technology the west has but the east doesn't is FAR more (and more useful!) than the tech the east has but the west doesn't.

 

[the nature boy]

this whole discussion is kind of pointless. In 500 to 1000 years things could be different. At one time the Eqyptians were at the top of the food chain. Nobody ever thought there was going to be anyone better than them. All it takes is some kind of event, be it natural or man made to change the order of things. Natural disasters or epidemics of desease can knock the best race or culture off the map.

 

[polarpixie]

And look how far that got them. Did they take over the entire fucking world? Did they send a man to the moon? Did they develop computers independently of Europe? But anyway, the Chinese are a very intelligent and inventive race - they are a close second.

Maybe I'll comment on the rest of what you said later, but for now, my only and previously unanswered satisfactorily question was, how do these accomplishments, sending men to the moon, or attempts to take over the world, make Europeans(cultural) the best group of people? Different folks, different strokes, different goals. Your argument is egocentric. So the Europeans developed their own educational system and the Africans did not. What does this say exactly? How does this prove that the Africans were not capable of doing the same, if they had so desired? Human beings have a few basic needs that need to be met above all else, mainly, food and shelter. Everything else comes after that. Maybe the Africans were just too preoccupied with feeding their bellies to think about developing an educational system.

 

[spongebob]

http://campus.northpark.edu/history/WebChron/EastEurope/Byzantium.html

zirakifigal, let me ask a couple of questions and answer them in your words.

1. did the byzantine and moslem empires coexist in the east?
2. did they exist in seperate regions of the east?
3. did the seljuk turks overthrow byzantine or just defeat them in one battle?
4. didnt the ottoman empire overthrow the byzantine empire?

 

[Zirakzigil]

Maybe I'll comment on the rest of what you said later, but for now, my only and previously unanswered satisfactorily question was, how do these accomplishments, sending men to the moon, or attempts to take over the world, make Europeans(cultural) the best group of people? Different folks, different strokes, different goals. Your argument is egocentric. So the Europeans developed their own educational system and the Africans did not. What does this say exactly? How does this prove that the Africans were not capable of doing the same, if they had so desired? Human beings have a few basic needs that need to be met above all else, mainly, food and shelter. Everything else comes after that. Maybe the Africans were just too preoccupied with feeding their bellies to think about developing an educational system.

If that is the case, then they are inferior.

Europeans were able and creative enough to feed themselves AND develop a strong tradition of education. Africans were, apparently, not. Different strokes for different folks, surely - but that doesn't mean all strokes are equal.

I suppose you think a kid who works his way through college is 'equal' to a guy who drops out of high school, starts stealing, and spends the next 10 years in the pen?

 

[the nature boy]

If that is the case, then they are inferior.

Europeans were able and creative enough to feed themselves AND develop a strong tradition of education. Africans were, apparently, not. Different strokes for different folks, surely - but that doesn't mean all strokes are equal.

non sense. what about climate and other environmental factors? that doesn't play a part?

 

[Zirakzigil]

non sense. what about climate and other environmental factors? that doesn't play a part?

...which is why Europeans were able to take over those places and establish civilization there?