"White Man's Burden"

[TwiceHorn 31,495]

2 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

The premise here is flawed. We may be the most advanced we have been technologically, but we are also at the farthest point to the right in the timeline. Assuming there is a positive correlation between the advancement of time and the advancement of technology (and even including some of our set backs, I think it is fairly clear that there is), any connection between our technology and the rise of WWEM is probably coincidental. 

Excellent point.  I should have included something to that effect in the OP, but it was implicit.  On the other hand, there are great swaths of the planet today that haven't, for whatever reason, advanced to the same levels, at least on material terms.

[Jiggy-Z 3,432]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

What does "advanced" even mean? What determines the "highest" point of civilization?

Is it this moment?

I don't mean that to be snarkily political, but take a few steps back from it, analyze the characters involved in a larger historical context, and contrast the supposed social holiness and wonder of the grand institutions involved with those characters.

And then try to argue something about the highest, most advanced civilization with a straight face.

Obviously a Harry Potter Fan:

[SimonBolivar 10,958]

2 minutes ago, Aphelion said:

This is excessively vague as it depends on what you confine to culture.  If you mean only things like language, food, marriage & funeral rituals, and music, then I agree and this is largely noncontroversial.  But if you also consider a society's prevailing moral views, laws, knowledge base, and approach to humans rights and education & science, then this is clearly not true.  If one believes in the possibility of advancement for human society, then this presupposes that there is such as thing as a more advanced society to advance towards.  

The point is that these things are all relative. We care about all of the things you mention, but culture B may not care about any one of those issues and may instead place a higher importance on the treatment of the elderly and may find us barbaric for putting our elderly in nursing homes. I'm all for the advancement of western society through globalization and the melding of our ideas with other ideas. I'm just pointing out the ethnocentrism and cultural relativism traps presented in any Intro to Anthro course.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, SimonBolivar said:

The point is that these things are all relative. We care about all of the things you mention, but culture B may not care about any one of those issues and may instead place a higher importance on the treatment of the elderly and may find us barbaric for putting our elderly in nursing homes. I'm all for the advancement of western society through globalization and the melding of our ideas with other ideas. I'm just pointing out the ethnocentrism and cultural relativism traps presented in any Intro to Anthro course.

My point is that things are not all relative.  Even you don't believe so as you say "I'm all for the advancement of western society through globalization and the melding of our ideas with other ideas."  

[SimonBolivar 10,958]

1 minute ago, Aphelion said:

My point is that things are not all relative.  Even you don't believe so as you say "I'm all for the advancement of western society through globalization and the melding of our ideas with other ideas."  

I'm just as prone to ethnocentrism as anyone else.

[TwiceHorn 31,495]

Thanks for all the thoughtful responses thus far.

[TwiceHorn 31,495]

Just now, SimonBolivar said:

I'm just as prone to ethnocentrism as anyone else.

I especially appreciate the concrete example of treatment of the elderly as something another culture or society does better than we do.

[triplehorn 2,664]

48 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

 One interesting aspect, considering the "soul," is that most of what seems to "count" as advanced civilization is material things or worldly things, which seem to be always at odds with spiritual things.

Recency bias causes us to overvalue the uniqueness of our familiar history.  One very important meaning of "soul" is "nature" or characteristics that are not consciously chosen.  Humans, irrespective of era and origin, have a shared nature and what "drives" people has arguably remained constant since before civilization.  The same innate drives that contribute to various "successes" through both tolerance and atrocity have manifested throughout history, the only differences being how technology alters the physical appearance. 

Knowing and teaching awareness of the unconscious 'soul' on a global scale is what is so elusive in spite of technological advancement.  For each new generation, it's a new lesson about the same human story.  

 

[David Dennison 18,922]

6 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I especially appreciate the concrete example of treatment of the elderly as something another culture or society does better than we do.

In my opinion, that is a direct result of 20th century capitalists working diligently to fracture the traditional family in an effort to create more households for consumer goods.

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, SimonBolivar said:

I'm just as prone to ethnocentrism as anyone else.

I didn't intend to sidetrack into a discussion on the merits of the extreme forms of moral & cultural relativism.  That may be better to reserve for a discussion on another thread.  I think moral & cultural relativism entails an extreme range of claims, some of which are obvious & noncontroversial while some of the other claims venture off into utter absurdity.  Proponents often point to the obvious claims as validation for the viewpoint and ignore the entailed absurdity.  I assume you disagree with my take on it.  Regardless, moral relativism should not be assumed as the default axiomatic basis merely because it may have been discussed in some intro to anthropology class.  

Edited July 3, 2018 by Guest

[FondrenRoad 4,378]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

This is the kind of answer I was looking for and I think you are probably correct.  One interesting aspect, considering the "soul," is that most of what seems to "count" as advanced civilization is material things or worldly things, which seem to be always at odds with spiritual things.

I actually agree with the original premise as well as this post.  However, I think it is the cultural failure of rampant materialism that created much of the advancement.  It's also why the "means" was often brutal as it mostly consisted of materialism driven takings either through forced labor, stolen gold, or warfare. And really, the vast majority of our current tech has its roots in waging war. There are and have always been later societal benefits to advancements made for the purpose of taking, fighting, and wealth accumulation.

Culturally, populations that focus on food, shelter, and family are happier than those that focus on materialism, so I wouldn't call ourselves culturally superior even though I would say we are technologically superior. This is even true of white cultures in Scandanavia, as well as other Europeans that have stepped back from cultural materialism over the last several decades.  

I also see a step back trend in American millennials. And a step up in cultural materialism in Asian cultures. The next technological sea changes are likely to come from China because of it. 

Edited July 3, 2018 by FondrenRoad

[Celery Man 20,966]

The premise here is flawed. We may be the most advanced we have been technologically, but we are also at the farthest point to the right in the timeline. Assuming there is a positive correlation between the advancement of time and the advancement of technology (and even including some of our set backs, I think it is fairly clear that there is), any connection between our technology and the rise of WWEM is probably coincidental. 

Not sure I follow. Do you mean that we (everyone) are currently at the right of the timeline and therefore we can’t attribute modern technology to WWEM? I would say that is true, but at the time when Europe took over the globe, everyone (as always) was at the right and one region’s technology was superior (broadly speaking). Go down the Guns Germs and Steel + whatever rebuttals followed for that disbussuon

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

9 minutes ago, Celery Man said:

 

Not sure I follow. Do you mean that we (everyone) are currently at the right of the timeline and therefore we can’t attribute modern technology to WWEM? I would say that is true, but at the time when Europe took over the globe, everyone (as always) was at the right and one region’s technology was superior (broadly speaking). Go down the Guns Germs and Steel + whatever rebuttals followed for that disbussuon

 

This.....

[FondrenRoad 4,378]

16 minutes ago, Celery Man said:

 

Not sure I follow. Do you mean that we (everyone) are currently at the right of the timeline and therefore we can’t attribute modern technology to WWEM? I would say that is true, but at the time when Europe took over the globe, everyone (as always) was at the right and one region’s technology was superior (broadly speaking). Go down the Guns Germs and Steel + whatever rebuttals followed for that disbussuon

 

Yeah, we are always at the right of the timeline.  Our technology is more advanced today than it was yesterday.  There have only been a handful of times in history where the current time was not the most technologically advanced time in history.  Its also possible that its never happened even though much is made of the Middle Ages regression.  Overall, a Middle Age army would likely wreck a Roman legion.  Knowledge was less widespread and growth of knowledge was less rapid, but I think the Middle Ages were mostly about stagnation rather than actual regression. Also, the Chinese were making some technological progress at the same time.

Edited July 3, 2018 by FondrenRoad

[Macanudo 12,989]

This whole question comes down to "Does the end justify the means."  

 

Doesn't that really depend on whether you were a means or the end?

[Dahobbs 17,625]

32 minutes ago, Celery Man said:

 

Not sure I follow. Do you mean that we (everyone) are currently at the right of the timeline and therefore we can’t attribute modern technology to WWEM? I would say that is true, but at the time when Europe took over the globe, everyone (as always) was at the right and one region’s technology was superior (broadly speaking). Go down the Guns Germs and Steel + whatever rebuttals followed for that disbussuon

 

You can pick any point in time and likely find 1 to 3 civilizations at the apex. That Europe was at the apex relatively recently doesn't do much to show there was something innately different or superior about European civilization. 3,000 years ago you could have imagined Chinese historians pondering a similar question, or 4,000 years ago Egyptian historians. Again, the common thread is that those apex civilizations will likely be more advanced than the apex civilization from 1,000 years before. And those apex civilizations tended to drain resources from a larger swath, partly explaining why only a handful have been supported globally at any one period.

And really, European civilization and technology was not ahead of much the world until well into the colonial period. What Europe did have was a bit of luck and one particularly important piece of technology, gun powder. For instance, the Mongolian empire was far ahead of the Europeans in variety of aspects. And in fact, one could easily argue that that the American civilizations were actually much more advanced at the time they encountered the Europeans, particularly in terms of agricultural technology, astronomy, and centralization of power. But all of that was most likely overpowered by European disease with a little help from guns.

My point is not to suggest there aren't aspects of European civilization that lead to our current technological apex. Instead, I am suggesting that we shouldn't over emphasize the importance of those qualities, when ultimately the primary driver isn't any single cultural attribute but merely the passage of time. In absence of Europe's rise, I have no doubt that some other civilization would have continued to accumulate power and driven similar advancement.   

Edited July 3, 2018 by Dahobbs

[Celery Man 20,966]

(following macanudo's post above about ends/means)

 

That's a question.  I think there's another question about... what is the value of "whataboutism".  Relevant to politics currently as well - Trump is doing x, whatabout Obama tho.  White's conquered the Native Americans (whatabout they were a bunch of groups who were busy conquering themselves) or enslaved the Africans (whatabout they were selling themselves into slavery).  The South has a dark racist past/present (whatabout the rampant racism that occurred/occurs throughout every other region of the country, the urban northeast for an easy one).

Edited July 3, 2018 by Celery Man

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

7 minutes ago, Macanudo said:

This whole question comes down to "Does the end justify the means."  

 

Doesn't that really depend on whether you were a means or the end?

Some people are more end than others, IMO.

[Celery Man 20,966]

7 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

You can pick any point in time and likely find 1 to 3 civilizations at the apex. That Europe was at the apex relatively recently doesn't do much to show there was something innately different or superior about European civilization. 3,000 years ago you could have imagined Chinese historians pondering a similar question, or 4,000 years ago Egyptian historians. Again, the common thread is that those apex civilizations will likely be more advanced than the apex civilization from 1,000 years before. And those apex civilizations tended to drain resources from a larger swath, partly explaining why only a handful have been supported globally at any one period.

And really, European civilization and technology was not ahead of much the world until well into the colonial period. What Europe did have was a bit of luck and one particularly important piece of technology, gun powder. In fact, one could easily argue that that the American civilizations were actually much more advanced at the time they encountered the Europeans, particularly in terms of agricultural technology, astronomy, and centralization of power. But all of that was most likely overpowered by European disease with a little help from guns.

My point is not to suggest there aren't aspects of European civilization that lead to our current technological apex. Instead, I am suggesting that we shouldn't over emphasize the importance of those qualities, when ultimately the primary driver isn't any single cultural attribute but merely the passage of time. In absence of Europe's rise, I have no doubt that some other civilization would have continued to accumulate power and driven similar advancement.   

 

One question I have around this, and cultural relativism, etc, and I don't have a firm perspective/entrenched set of beliefs, but this "western civilization just happens to be further down the path" is often bandied about when comparing it to the Muslim world.  Are the two worlds geographically isolated enough for that to even make sense?

Edited July 3, 2018 by Celery Man

[Dahobbs 17,625]

1 minute ago, Celery Man said:

 

One question I have around this, and cultural relativism, etc, and I don't have a firm perspective/entrenched set of beliefs, but this "western civilization just happens to be further down the path" bandied about when comparing it to the Muslim world.  Are the two worlds geographically isolated enough for that to even make sense?

I don't know what this means or even what you mean by the "Muslim world." For instance, Iran/Persia has been largely Muslim for most of modern history and has been at or near the forefront of civilizations during that time. 

[TwiceHorn 31,495]

12 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

You can pick any point in time and likely find 1 to 3 civilizations at the apex. That Europe was at the apex relatively recently doesn't do much to show there was something innately different or superior about European civilization. 3,000 years ago you could have imagined Chinese historians pondering a similar question, or 4,000 years ago Egyptian historians. Again, the common thread is that those apex civilizations will likely be more advanced than the apex civilization from 1,000 years before. And those apex civilizations tended to drain resources from a larger swath, partly explaining why only a handful have been supported globally at any one period.

And really, European civilization and technology was not ahead of much the world until well into the colonial period. What Europe did have was a bit of luck and one particularly important piece of technology, gun powder. For instance, the Mongolian empire was far ahead of the Europeans in variety of aspects. And in fact, one could easily argue that that the American civilizations were actually much more advanced at the time they encountered the Europeans, particularly in terms of agricultural technology, astronomy, and centralization of power. But all of that was most likely overpowered by European disease with a little help from guns.

My point is not to suggest there aren't aspects of European civilization that lead to our current technological apex. Instead, I am suggesting that we shouldn't over emphasize the importance of those qualities, when ultimately the primary driver isn't any single cultural attribute but merely the passage of time. In absence of Europe's rise, I have no doubt that some other civilization would have continued to accumulate power and driven similar advancement.   

I think you raise interesting and valid points, but from a devil's advocate position find it interesting that you seized on gunpowder, which, of course, was invented in China and employed by the Mongols against Europeans in the 13th century.

 

Them white boys like their guns.

[TwiceHorn 31,495]

10 minutes ago, Celery Man said:

 

One question I have around this, and cultural relativism, etc, and I don't have a firm perspective/entrenched set of beliefs, but this "western civilization just happens to be further down the path" is often bandied about when comparing it to the Muslim world.  Are the two worlds geographically isolated enough for that to even make sense?

 

2 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I don't know what this means or even what you mean by the "Muslim world." For instance, Iran/Persia has been largely Muslim for most of modern history and has been at or near the forefront of civilizations during that time. 

Arab world might be a better term for Celery's purposes.  The Persians probably led the world in "culture and civilization" as contemplated by this thread, until the Mongols got hold of them and perpetrated some malfeasance.

[FondrenRoad 4,378]

4 minutes ago, Celery Man said:

 

One question I have around this, and cultural relativism, etc, and I don't have a firm perspective/entrenched set of beliefs, but this "western civilization just happens to be further down the path" is often bandied about when comparing it to the Muslim world.  Are the two worlds geographically isolated enough for that to even make sense?

They aren't isolated enough.  Any invention or advancement they make is going to necessarily build off technology that already exists.  So anything they invent can be claimed by Westerners.  But dahobbs already mentioned gunpowder as something that made Western armies superior.  That was a Chinese invention, but the West still takes credit for the development of firearms.  And also, for example, Muslims did make advancements in structural engineering for skyscrapers even if they didn't invent skyscrapers themselves.  And in the modern integrated world, we have seen both Japan and China advance to the technological apex building on prior Western advances.  Are these considered "Western cultures" because of it?

[Dahobbs 17,625]

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

I think you raise interesting and valid points, but from a devil's advocate position find it interesting that you seized on gunpowder, which, of course, was invented in China and employed by the Mongols against Europeans in the 13th century.

 

Them white boys like their guns.

Of course, and I think that is sort of my point. It takes a lot for a civilization to reach the top of the food chain, and much of it is historical happenstance. I raised gunpowder to partly explain how European civilization ultimately came to dominate other, arguably more advanced civilizations, such as the American ones. The mongol empire ultimately collapsed under its own weight, and we very well may be seeing a similar decline in Europe over the next few hundred years. Some other civilization will fill the power gap and they'll be asking the same question: what about us has allowed us to create the most advanced civilization of all time. And my answer will be the same: time. 

[TwiceHorn 31,495]

1 hour ago, FondrenRoad said:

I actually agree with the original premise as well as this post.  However, I think it is the cultural failure of rampant materialism that created much of the advancement.  It's also why the "means" was often brutal as it mostly consisted of materialism driven takings either through forced labor, stolen gold, or warfare. And really, the vast majority of our current tech has its roots in waging war. There are and have always been later societal benefits to advancements made for the purpose of taking, fighting, and wealth accumulation.

Culturally, populations that focus on food, shelter, and family are happier than those that focus on materialism, so I wouldn't call ourselves culturally superior even though I would say we are technologically superior. This is even true of white cultures in Scandanavia, as well as other Europeans that have stepped back from cultural materialism over the last several decades.  

I also see a step back trend in American millennials. And a step up in cultural materialism in Asian cultures. The next technological sea changes are likely to come from China because of it. 

An interesting observation that I think generally I agree with.

 

I'm not wholly convinced, however, that materialism drives technology.  I am more inclined to agree that warmaking drives technology, but it isn't the sole driver.  I think one thing that drives technology is the "leisure time" to contemplate and to visualize a better or easier way to do things, which does result from a certain level of societal materialism, that is, freedom from labor for the necessities of life sufficient to grant that leisure time or to delegate to a portion of society freedom from physical production or labor.

Edited July 3, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[Guest]

23 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

And in fact, one could easily argue that that the American civilizations were actually much more advanced at the time they encountered the Europeans, particularly in terms of agricultural technology, astronomy, and centralization of power.   

The Europeans were far ahead of the indigenous Americans in these areas.  I would be interested in seeing your arguments which demonstrate otherwise.  

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

22 minutes ago, Celery Man said:

 

One question I have around this, and cultural relativism, etc, and I don't have a firm perspective/entrenched set of beliefs, but this "western civilization just happens to be further down the path" is often bandied about when comparing it to the Muslim world.  Are the two worlds geographically isolated enough for that to even make sense?

I'd say yes they were, physically, and culturally, and geographically location specific (the degree of difficulty in the climates of the two regions). 

I think they were separated enough geographically to have entirely different, and uniquely influenced paths of development. 

Culturally, religion would also make them far apart, and religion would have to be one of the contributing reasons for the wests eventual domination, as Islam retreated into a semi constant state of tribalist warfare, as Mohamed's brand of Islam spread and squashed cultural advancement.

Christianity and Judaism were just as barbaric, but for some reason seemed to embrace advancement generally, as long as it didn't upset their apple carts view of man and god, or threaten Their control, power and continued wealth.

[FondrenRoad 4,378]

10 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

An interesting observation that I think generally I agree with.

 

I'm not wholly convinced, however, that materialism drives technology.  I am more inclined to agree that warmaking drives technology, but it isn't the sole driver.  I think one thing that drives technology is the "leisure time" to contemplate and to visualize a better or easier way to do things, which does result from a certain level of societal materialism, that is, freedom from labor for the necessities of life sufficient to grant that leisure time or to delegate to a portion of society freedom from physical production or labor.

I agree that warmaking is the primary driver.  However, I also think that warmaking itself is an endeavor based on materialism.  Typically, the aggressor is driven by material gain in land, treasure, or labor.  Defensive technological advancement is also rooted in materialism as the starting point is the materialistic aggressor.  There are aggressive warmakers with religious rather than materialist goals, but in history, I can't think of one that advanced warfare technology.  While Europe certainly spread Christianity by gun and sword, their primary goal was always wealth and land.

As for the "leisure time" argument, I also agree.  And that is also material driven.  Its hard to say that any culture is completely non-materialistic, but in less materialistic cultures, leisure time is spent with friends and family.  If you have enough to eat, shelter, and clothing, you don't "need" much else to be happy.  However, you do need materialists to do the dirty work because disease and drought can kill that happiness real quick.

[Celery Man 20,966]

36 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

 

Arab world might be a better term for Celery's purposes.  The Persians probably led the world in "culture and civilization" as contemplated by this thread, until the Mongols got hold of them and perpetrated some malfeasance.

Yeah, mea culpa - Arab world.

[SimonBolivar 10,958]

22 minutes ago, Aphelion said:

The Europeans were far ahead of the indigenous Americans in these areas.  I would be interested in seeing your arguments which demonstrate otherwise.  

It depends on what you mean by indigenous Americans. The Mexica were probably better than the Spaniards at a lot of things, but of course the Mexica weren't average for the Americas. The also lagged behind the Spaniards in a lot of other areas due to isolationism while Europe was learning, warring,  and building immunities from the Arabs and Asians and vice versa.

 

Here is Bernard Diaz' recounting of visiting Tenochtitlan.

Quote

When we saw so many cities and villages built in the water and other great towns on dry land we were amazed and said that it was like the enchantments (...) on account of the great towers and cues and buildings rising from the water, and all built of masonry. And some of our soldiers even asked whether the things that we saw were not a dream? (...) I do not know how to describe it, seeing things as we did that had never been heard of or seen before, not even dreamed about.

Cortes was a known braggart, but he stated that the markets of Central Mexico were twice the size of Spain's largest and they were feeding a larger population than Spain was at the time. Tenochtitlan had  200,000 people which was roughly the same size as the top European cities of the time. I like the story how the Mexica would follow the Spaniards around burning incense everywhere they went. The Spaniards thought it was because they were being perceived as gods, but in reality it was because they stunk compared to the cleaner Mexica. I'd recommend Hugh Thomas' book on the Conquest by the Spaniards. It's a really fun read.

 

[TwiceHorn 31,495]

Lots of good stuff in here.  Again, thanks for the contributions.

 

This thread was somewhat provoked by Hugos thread about why the right fears the left, or more accurately, the notion that whites fear becoming the minority.  That provoked me to ask, what is there to be afraid of?  What do we have that's so great and why does anyone think that browns or whatever are going to destroy it.

So, yeah, the OP was prompted by the perhaps flawed  assumption that what we have is maybe better than ok, and, the fact that I'm a middle-aged white dude and can't help myself.  At least I'm asking questions.  And concerned.

Edited July 3, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[Guest]

32 minutes ago, SimonBolivar said:

It depends on what you mean by indigenous Americans. The Mexica were probably better than the Spaniards at a lot of things, but of course the Mexica weren't average for the Americas. The also lagged behind the Spaniards in a lot of other areas due to isolationism while Europe was learning, warring,  and building immunities from the Arabs and Asians and vice versa.

 

Here is Bernard Diaz' recounting of visiting Tenochtitlan.

Cortes was a known braggart, but he stated that the markets of Central Mexico were twice the size of Spain's largest and they were feeding a larger population than Spain was at the time. Tenochtitlan had  200,000 people which was roughly the same size as the top European cities of the time. I like the story how the Mexica would follow the Spaniards around burning incense everywhere they went. The Spaniards thought it was because they were being perceived as gods, but in reality it was because they stunk compared to the cleaner Mexica. I'd recommend Hugh Thomas' book on the Conquest by the Spaniards. It's a really fun read.

 

I'm not arguing that there were not admirable achievements & advanced forms of civilization & learning in the Americas.  But if we do an honest comparison of the technology and knowledge and overall organization & structure of the Americas vs Europe circa early 16th century, it is evident that the Europeans were far ahead during this time.  Here is a brief list of the technology of medieval Europe.  Much of this (nor any remote equivalent) did not exist in the Americas.  The pre-Colombian Americans did not even develop the wheel.  There was only one prominent & well-organized civilization with even a primitive written language system in existence in the entire western hemisphere, as the Mayan civilization had already collapsed before Columbus arrived and the Inca did not have a written language.  The overall literacy rates in the Americas were much lower than Europe; their writing systems were more primitive and cumbersome; their mathematical and scientific knowledge was not as advanced (I am aware of the Mayan calendar and their use of 0); the Europeans were vastly superior in their architecture, metallurgy, printing, academies of learning, mechanics, modes of transportation, weapons, textiles, &c.  A few large cities in the Americas does not negate all of this.  

If we find evidence that even some of the technology, scientific & mathematical knowledge, or architectural advancements of the Europeans was known and used by the indigenous Americans, it is trumpeted as a marvelous advancement; which it is, but the fact that it is seen as marvelous when we find out that the indigenous Americans knew and developed even partially what the Europeans did should highlight the massive disparity between the two groups.  

Edited July 3, 2018 by Guest

[SimonBolivar 10,958]

7 minutes ago, Aphelion said:

I'm not arguing that there were not admirable achievements & advanced forms of civilization & learning in the Americas.  But if we do an honest comparison of the technology and knowledge and overall organization & structure of the Americas vs Europe circa early 16th century, it is evident that the Europeans were far ahead during this time.  Here is a brief list of the technology of medieval Europe.  Much of this (nor any remote equivalent) did not exist in the Americas.  The pre-Colombian Americans did not even develop the wheel.  There was only one prominent & well-organized civilization with even a primitive written language system in existence in the entire western hemisphere, as the Mayan civilization had already collapsed before Columbus arrived and the Inca did not have a written language.  The overall literacy rates in the Americas were much lower than Europe; their writing systems were more primitive and cumbersome; their mathematical and scientific knowledge was not as advanced (I am aware of the Mayan calendar and their use of 0); the Europeans were vastly superior in their architecture, metallurgy, printing, academies of learning, mechanics, modes of transportation, weapons, textiles, &c.  A few large cities in the Americas does not negate all of this.  

If we find evidence that even some of the technology, scientific & mathematical knowledge, or architectural advancements of the Europeans was known and used by the indigenous Americans, it is trumpeted as a marvelous advancement; which it is, but the fact that it is seen as marvelous when we find out that the indigenous Americans knew and developed even partially what the Europeans did should highlight the massive disparity between the two groups.  

As far as I know all of this is correct otherwise the Spanish wouldn't have been able to decimate the Valley of Mexico even with their biological advantage. I like the Mexica and find them fascinating. 

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, SimonBolivar said:

As far as I know all of this is correct otherwise the Spanish wouldn't have been able to decimate the Valley of Mexico even with their biological advantage. I like the Mexica and find them fascinating. 

I do as well.

I should also add that the Europeans did not develop these things in isolation.  They built upon & borrowed from other cultures and civilizations spanning a huge timescale and geography.    They were somewhat like the Japanese of today; it doesn't really matter who first developed it, if the Japanese get interested in something they will improve upon it and eventually make the best version of it available.  

[zork 629]

Was there slavery before the Ancient Egyptians?  (1550-1175 BC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_ancient_Egypt

Rome had slavery of course:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_ancient_Rome

The Japanese:

Quote

Japan had an official slave system from the Yamato period (3rd century A.D.) until Toyotomi Hideyoshiabolished it in 1590.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Japan

The Tang dynasty, China of course, had forms of slavery: (618–907)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tang_dynasty

 

The WWEM in America appropriated slavery into the new world in 1621 according to :

Quote

Who started with slavery?

In 1619 twenty Africans were brought to the English colony of Jamestown, Virginia. Historians are undecided if the legal practice of slavery began there, since at least some of them had the status of indentured servant. Alden T. Vaughn says most agree that both Negro slaves and indentured servants existed by 1640.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery

 

So just on that one point it seems WWEM were certainly not unique. 

 

Doesn't make it right.  Live your life on what is right and wrong and not necessarily what is legal.  Looking at history through the prism of today can lead to a lot of blame that can be fair or not.

Guilt aspersion seems to be one of the SJW favorite methods. 

Take what is warranted and live your life learning from the past.    Fortunately the WWEM in my lineage seemed to miss much of the guilt leaving Germany before WWI and of course being in America after the slave days of pre-civil war.  I recognize the privilege the WWEM that came here before and since appropriated with which I benefit. 

Overall I'm just a poor caveman simpleton though.  (lean right) 

Seems those dirty Egyptians are to blame for it all.  Pyramids aren't going to build themselves.  (endless extrapolation since)/Sarc) 

[David Dennison 18,922]

17 hours ago, zork said:

Was there slavery before the Ancient Egyptians?  (1550-1175 BC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_ancient_Egypt

Rome had slavery of course:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_ancient_Rome

The Japanese:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Japan

The Tang dynasty, China of course, had forms of slavery: (618–907)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tang_dynasty

 

The WWEM in America appropriated slavery into the new world in 1621 according to :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery

 

So just on that one point it seems WWEM were certainly not unique. 

 

Doesn't make it right.  Live your life on what is right and wrong and not necessarily what is legal.  Looking at history through the prism of today can lead to a lot of blame that can be fair or not.

Guilt aspersion seems to be one of the SJW favorite methods. 

Take what is warranted and live your life learning from the past.    Fortunately the WWEM in my lineage seemed to miss much of the guilt leaving Germany before WWI and of course being in America after the slave days of pre-civil war.  I recognize the privilege the WWEM that came here before and since appropriated with which I benefit. 

Overall I'm just a poor caveman simpleton though.  (lean right) 

Seems those dirty Egyptians are to blame for it all.  Pyramids aren't going to build themselves.  (endless extrapolation since)/Sarc) 

None of the above has any bearing whatsoever on the white racism that currently exists in this country, racism which evolved, in part, from the practice of enslaving Africans.

 

[bad_teammate 13,215]

23 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

So, yeah, the OP was prompted by the perhaps flawed  assumption that what we have is maybe better than ok, and, the fact that I'm a middle-aged white dude and can't help myself.  At least I'm asking questions.  And concerned.

You have multiple people being EXTREMELY patient with you and you're still at "perhaps" flawed regarding your assumption that white culture is supreme?

What an asshole I am/was for seeing this for exactly what it was from the very beginning.

[Celery Man 20,966]

The "what about" logic applies to racism in other countries too, just as it applies to the north when comparing it to the south.  I think that the danger of that logic is that people walk away from it thinking "Others did it too, so... issue over.  No need for further concern.".  I guess I'm technically a millennial, my great great grandpa fought in the Civil War (for the Confederacy) and my parents grew up in a world with segregated schools, water fountains, bus seats, etc.  It's fucking recent.  It's still a thing, it doesn't just get to go away because it's uncomfortable for white people to examine and racism isn't unique to our culture.

[Celery Man 20,966]

It's not constructive to go hard "you're a white supremacist" whenever you see something that you could possibly interpret that way in a conversation like this, especially if the person doesn't give you a general reason to think that they are broadly speaking a fucking racist.

[bad_teammate 13,215]

29 minutes ago, Celery Man said:

It's not constructive to go hard "you're a white supremacist" whenever you see something that you could possibly interpret that way in a conversation like this, especially if the person doesn't give you a general reason to think that they are broadly speaking a fucking racist.

What if they do give a reason by creating a completely artificial category based on race and then argue for the supremacy of that race? What if that happens? Does racist or white supremacist belief disappear if the person espousing it is nice and calm? Is racism defined by the mood of the speaker? Tattoos?

#decorum

White supremacy is the belief that whites are supreme. The OP is explicitly, in its own language, white supremacist.

Regarding what is and what is not constructive, what constructiveness do you see? OP is now at the exact same point he started, despite many people being very nice patient non-white-supremacists and he spent the entire thread being "devil's advocate" for the position he started with.

[atomheartbevo 89,727]

On 7/3/2018 at 12:34 PM, Aphelion said:

The Europeans were far ahead of the indigenous Americans in these areas.  I would be interested in seeing your arguments which demonstrate otherwise.  

Europeans also gave us Pabst Blue Ribbon, so it’s a wash.

[David Dennison 18,922]

I'll just leave this here. Seems relevant.

[Celery Man 20,966]

10 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

What if they do give a reason by creating a completely artificial category based on race and then argue for the supremacy of that race? What if that happens? Does racist or white supremacist belief disappear if the person espousing it is nice and calm? Is racism defined by the mood of the speaker? Tattoos?

#decorum

White supremacy is the belief that whites are supreme. The OP is explicitly, in its own language, white supremacist.

Regarding what is and what is not constructive, what constructiveness do you see? OP is now at the exact same point he started, despite many people being very nice patient non-white-supremacists and he spent the entire thread being "devil's advocate" for the position he started with.

Twice's OP posits that WWEM arguably advanced culture and civilization to its highest point in history.  He's not wrong - you can make that argument without being a crazy person.  You can argue against it - you can whittle it down to what is true and not true about that idea.  You can discuss the complexities around how western civilization was more advanced in some ways, but not in others in comparison to cultures indigenous to America.  You can discuss how it is not a case of the ends justifying the means, or at least not a case of the ends erasing the means.  You could have a conversation.  Unless you take that initial assertion and dumb it down to "= white culture is supreme, white's are supreme, this is white supremacy, OP is a white supremacist."  Then, you cannot have a conversation.

[bad_teammate 13,215]

2 minutes ago, Celery Man said:

Twice's OP posits that WWEM arguably advanced culture and civilization to its highest point in history.  He's not wrong - you can make that argument without being a crazy person.  You can argue against it - you can whittle it down to what is true and not true about that idea.  You can discuss the complexities around how western civilization was more advanced in some ways, but not in others in comparison to cultures indigenous to America.  You can discuss how it is not a case of the ends justifying the means, or at least not a case of the ends erasing the means.  You could have a conversation.  Unless you take that initial assertion and dumb it down to "= white culture is supreme, white's are supreme, this is white supremacy, OP is a white supremacist."  Then, you cannot have a conversation.

Why?

Why are white supremacists so dependent on safe spaces?

[David Dennison 18,922]

6 minutes ago, Celery Man said:

Twice's OP posits that WWEM arguably advanced culture and civilization to its highest point in history.  He's not wrong - you can make that argument without being a crazy person.  You can argue against it - you can whittle it down to what is true and not true about that idea.  You can discuss the complexities around how western civilization was more advanced in some ways, but not in others in comparison to cultures indigenous to America.  You can discuss how it is not a case of the ends justifying the means, or at least not a case of the ends erasing the means.  You could have a conversation.  Unless you take that initial assertion and dumb it down to "= white culture is supreme, white's are supreme, this is white supremacy, OP is a white supremacist."  Then, you cannot have a conversation.

Or you can blame it on germs. Disease really did have a lot to do with the conquest of the New World by Europeans. It's a shame we'll never know what would have happened if that variable was taken out of the equation.

Edited July 4, 2018 by David Dennison

[DixonHur 11,338]

The biggest problem with the premise of this thread is what does it mean to be white?

You can't determine the impact 'whites' have had on culture and civilization until you identify who is and isn't white.  

The idea of race is a very recent invention, and in America during the 19th century, white only encompassed Anglo-Saxon Protestants.  Which meant folks like Galileo, Capernicus, da Vinci, Tesla, Jesus, et al, were not white.

 

 

Edited July 4, 2018 by DixonHur
Got-damn auto correct

[bad_teammate 13,215]

1 minute ago, DixonHur said:

The biggest problem with the premise of this thread is what does it mean to be white?

You can't determine the impact 'whites' have had on culture and civilization until you identify who is and isn't white.  

The idea of race is a very recent invention, and in America during the 19th century, white only encompassed Anglo-Saxon Protestants.  Which meant folks like Galileo, Capernicus, Ced Vinci, Tesla, Jesus, et al, we're not white.

Very-end-of-the-17th instead of 19th, but you're completely right. "White" as a race is something European-descendants in America invented and then extended deep into the historical past and across continents.

The idea that Erik the Red, Otto I of Rome, and whoever was in charge of the Byzantine empire would all consider themselves one race/culture in 950AD (or whatever) is laughable to everyone but the profoundly ignorant (e.g., the white supremacist).

[Cacti 191]

On ‎7‎/‎3‎/‎2018 at 9:56 AM, David Dennison said:

The Romans are WWEM. 

 

23 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

The idea of race is a very recent invention, and in America during the 19th century, white only encompassed Anglo-Saxon Protestants.  Which meant folks like Galileo, Capernicus, da Vinci, Tesla, Jesus, et al, were not white.

 

It appears the Romans were a mixed bag of whites and Mediterranean people. But if they were anything like Southern Italians, then they would have been considered non-white by American definition, at least in the late 1800s and early 1900s. In fact, they were considered black in the South and were treated as such. Greeks were also classified as non-white and, defying all logic, so were Irish immigrants.

[DixonHur 11,338]

20 hours ago, zork said:

Seems those dirty Egyptians are to blame for it all.  Pyramids aren't going to build themselves.  (endless extrapolation since)/Sarc) 

Just a couple of quick notes.... recent DNA tests of several mummies shows that the Egyptians were of European ancestry; so...

And its widely accepted that the pyramids were not built by slaves, but rather by Egyptian peasants during the dry season...aka, when they couldn't farm.  

Edited July 4, 2018 by DixonHur

[zork 629]

37 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Just a couple of quick notes.... recent DNA tests of several mummies shows that the Egyptians we're of European ancestry; so...

And its widely accepted that the pyramids were not built by slaves, but rather by Egyptian peasants during the dry season...aka, when they couldn't farm.  

So no slaves in Egypt during the time of the building of the Pyramids?  (it was a joke, (see sarc tag) btw, maybe put 'Pyramids' in scare quotes to denote whatever lazy people,(or powerful people who would have rather kept the conquered alive as slaves rather than kill them) didn't want to do(by themselves) during the early days of slavery back in Egypt). 

I suspect slavery was originally rooted in dominance of one tribe over another.  More is better tribe dominates and then decides to continue dominance at the individual level over their conquered.  No value judgement being made in those last two sentences.

Edited July 4, 2018 by zork