Originally Posted by deke
Translation from guaporensese: "non white people are useless for the countries that own them. The population of the UK only had to pay for the burden of maintaining the vast mobs of brown people and the military required to hold these possessions."
You get what he's getting at? Look at his posting history.
Your ad hominen attacks are nauseating. I am only explaining the simple facts of history.
Like it or not, the simple undeniable fact in world history is that Western civilization was technologically and socially more complex than other cultures for most of history which resulted into the Westernized planet that we have today.
It is a very simple fact that is not hard to understand or notice. And there is no need to use racial hypothesis to understand the European domination of the planet. As there is no need to deny the obvious historical fact that European civilization has proceeded to dominated the entire planet since the 15th century.
The denial of this reality is the result of emotion, not reason. Notice how emotional you get about this subject. This emotion clouds your capacity for reasoning.
A scientific explanation for European world domination can be articulated as follows:
1 - Agriculture and towns were first invented in Turkey and the Levant.
2 - They spread around these areas thousands of years before they were invented in other places.
3 - The three largest arable regions in Eurasia are China, India and Europe. The dominant civilization had to come out of one of these three places. The Middle East was the most advanced place for the first few thousands of years after the development of civilization but due to its limitation given by the lack of arable land, the middle east became increasingly peripheric to Europe and by the 17th and 18th centuries, the last great Middle Eastern Empire, the Ottomans, became a de facto third world country.
4 - Of these three, Europe was next to the Levant and turkey while India and China were thousands of kilometers away. Therefore, agriculture and towns (thus civilization) reached Europe before they reached
5 - Europe also had access to the mediterranean and to the atlantic seas and had a greater number of natural harbours than India or China, facilitating sea travel. Sea travel was the only cheap way of carrying out commerce before the invention of the railroad in the 19th century. Therefore, Europe had a much better geography for trade
6 - These factors combined lead to the historical reality that for most of human history (let's say, for 4,500 years of the last 5,300 years), Europe & the Mediterranean consisted of the most advanced region of the planet and this highly sophisticated civilization expanded and came to assimilate all other civilizations creating a single global civilization by the mid 20th century.
Overall we can understand European world domination as the result of geographical factors. People in Europe are like people everywhere else but only in Europe they had the most favorable geography.
The british acquired the design and idea for congreve rockets from indian muslims like tipu sultan who launched thousands of rockets at them. It was only with these congreve rockets that they defeated china in the opium wars by blowing up war junks so fast. Guaporense is wrong again, like when he claimed han china used only pig iron.
I never claimed that Han China only used pig iron and I never claimed that Europe never assimilated any technology from regions outside itself. I very much noticed the fact that corn and potatoes were agricultural technologies imported from the Amerindian civilizations.
Don't put words into my mouth.
And no, you have not proven me wrong in any way shape or form. The simple fact is that at the time of the Opium Wars, Europe was so much more advanced than China that a medium sized European country could easily defeated the whole of China in war without any difficulty at all. Just in the same way that the US can defeat Guatemala in war without any difficulty at all.
Any denial of the discrepancy between Europe and China in the degree of social, economic, technological and political development in the early to mid 19th century should be taken as seriously as the denial of the holocaust or of the moon landings in 1969. It is just ludicrous.
What we can do is to formulate rational explanations for what happened. It doesn't make sense to deny what happened, instead we must accept reality and deal with it rationally.