Race..Culture..Non pc Question

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
41

[quote]jre67t wrote:
As an Hispanic I often argue with my fellow mojo friends and black brothers about this. Not necessarily as whites being supreme, but why are most powerful countries excluding Asians, ran by the Anglos. There are examples of bad Anglo countries i.e. former Soviet Union States.

Look at South America yeah its doing well and good but in my opinion it could be a whole lot better, they are full of natural resources. Same as Mexico very rich in resources as well. Look at the majority of Africa and the Middle East and some of Indonesia and India. Why are the majority so downtrodden and in poverty?

Australia and New Zealand are doing well and are populated with Anglos as well. There must be something to this in my opinion. Are they smarter, better, stronger, No. But in my opinion I believe they have way of thinking of the greater of the herd than for the one. Mind you I do not include the Hitler types.

Also before you guys bash on me Im an Anchor baby from two wetbacks. The problem with America is not the Mexicans its the real Southern countries, i.e. Nicaragua, Salvador…so on and so on. Where real poverty is 90 percent of the population. [/quote]

As an outsider to it all, I would opine it is Protestant nations that have done better, as they embraced the concept of the rule of law, personal responsibility, and seperation of Church and State much earlier.

They’re downright Jewish in their thinking.

1 Like
42

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Your original post exudes ignorance. I find it amusing that the white people screaming about how “White Christians are so smart and important” are usually the stupidest and least important people around.

A lot has already been touched on. Many of the greatest philosophers in human history predated Christ, so there goes the Christian part of your theory. Edward Gibbon argued that the Pax Romana (1st-2nd Centuries CE) was the single greatest and most peaceful time to live on Earth. At least in the Mediterranean world, it was certainly a more humane period than both the Early and High Middle Ages–during which Christianity was, for the first time, at the center of European life.

Why was it Europe and not Africa that produced Hamlet and the Mona Lisa and the Notre Dame? Geography. Europeans live in a temperate climate. Summers are warm and winters are cold but water is abundant and the temperature rarely kills. The animals scattered across Europe are generally harmless and remarkably domesticable. Africa is the opposite. Could Shakespeare have penned (quilled?) Othello if he had to spend every day walking ten miles to the river (you can’t live near it because predators congregate there every day), running from lions, hunting gazelles, all the while sweating like a whore in church? No.

Throughout most of the history of civilization, China was the most sophisticated place on Earth.

The torch of civilization was carried in large part by Islamic Arabs during the Dark Ages. Europeans laughed at the ridiculous Arabs because they “bathed every day”…many Brits bathed only once or twice a year. They even introduced the concept of zero to the stupid white Christians in 12th Century (it probably originated in India in the 9th Century).

Why did Europe (and later, North America) emerge as the powerhouse of the Modern Era? Diamond argues Guns, Germs, and Steel. Add to that large natural reserves of coal very close to the surface. Also, the willingness to colonize and mercilessly exploit foreign peoples.

Don’t get me wrong, I love me my whiteness. Vampire Weekend crooning on the radio as I roll to the hip downtown coffee shop in my Prius. The gentle breeze threatening to undo my skinny scarf and blow my pastel fedora out into the suburban Springtime. But fucktards like you need to understand that we arrived here today as a result of a huge collective effort on the part of literally millions of people of different religious, ethnic, and racial backgrounds. We sit on the shoulders of Giants–and many of them were black, Latino, Chinese, Arabian…even Eastern European I guess (I joke, I joke). What the fuck have you contributed to human civilization?[/quote]
Fact: Studies indicate that the average african is mentally retarded or at least borderline retarded.

You need a large enough population of sufficiently intelligent people to build a society which can carry a Shakespeare on its own shoulders. You need a group of people capable of carrying out simpler tasks and upholding order; government, food production, distribution, caretaking etc.
Then you need the geniuses to come up with higher technology and ideas for making the workers’ work more efficient. As this process goes on, a society develops to the degree that it can afford a philosopher or a poet to fulfill related needs. Before coming up with a Shakespeare, they should do something like inventing the wheel to help themselves. The africans have not done this.

The temperatures in many european countries are unforgiving (occasionally sub-arctic) and the natural resources poor, as opposed to the excellent resources of Africa. You can survive days without water but you can’t survive a night in freezing cold without proper shelter. In addition, you have almost nothing to eat and have to hunt on a terrain of thick snow. The domesticable animals would not be in love with those conditions either. And indians were able to domesticate the elephant.

If a group of people does not have the brains or willingness to go seafaring and thus come in contact with others, then it’s impossible to say that they would not have mercilessly colonized, if they could have. In order to do something, one must have the ability to do it first. If anecdotal evidence going back centuries as well as crime date from recent years is of any worth, they would have been far more merciless.

Here’s a small breakdown:
-Whites: Most inventions on record, highest technological achievements, most written languages, the most celebrated aesthetics, most celebrated musicians and artists, celebrated architecture, dominant religions and philosophies, bulk of world trade, like to stick to their own kind but also account for most developmental aid to other races
-North-East Asians: Smart, orderly, prone to tyranny, copy ideas from whites, racist towards other races and like to isolate, amazed by the beauty of whites
-Amerindians: Primitive, semi-urban societies/countries with whiter ones rising at the top, reputed to hold ancient, historical achievements in architecture and mathematics
-Indians: India, once ruled by whites, was reputedly a great civilization. These days, quite awful with primitive beliefs. India also gave Europe gypsies, a band of traveling criminals prone to mental retardation
-Arabs: reputed to hold historical achievements in math and science, have a history of empires and colonization, tendency to follow a violent and backwards (for all practical purposes) religion, more aggressive and criminal than whites, more sexual than whites; lust after white women
-Blacks: No achievements save for some piles of rocks celebrated as proof of civilization, jokesters in academia and Hollywood have attempted to build a reputation using sleight of hand and positive imagery

So there is some complexity to the picture. As it is, we must remember that diversity is not a strength if it leads to the white race destroying itself. Other races lust after white genes which, when allowed, causes us all to dissolve into a brownish mold, the very opposite of lies about diversity taught to us in school.

43

[quote]Valor wrote:

[quote]Spartacus32 wrote:

[quote]Valor wrote:
As the world changes I think a good argument can be made that White Christian (males…) have been the driving force that created the ideals of Liberty, Rule of Law, Equality, and personal responsability.

When you review World History. I think the above is fairly clear. Without question others have helped and Whites have made errors. But overall I think the point holds.

If…If I’m correct…where does that leave us as we abandon those values and as the plague Multiculturlism spreads?[/quote]

If I were you, I would open those World History textbooks and look up the Persian Empire, Mesopotamia, ancient Egypt, Phoenicia, ancient Greece, the Roman Empire, and Alexander the Great. Every single one of those ideals came about before the idea of Christianity and a lot of these ideals have their origins in the fertile crescent. Also, after the fall of Alexander and his Library plunged Europe into the Dark Ages, it was contact with the Persians and the pagans in Ireland that began reintroducing these ideals to the Europeans.
[/quote]

Fair point. Though as I post from “birth place of civlization” let me assure you…

They’ve forgotten most of those lessons.
[/quote]

I have been there myself several times in the service and I agree 100% on that, but you still cannot deny their past contributions to society.

44

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

Man, I hate asking this question because of even the appearance of being racist but I’m curious about your African comments. So, it’s your position that African culture has not advanced (socially and economically) because it’s hot and predators live near the rivers? What about building canals, aqueducts and such? Fences? Why is a country with such natural resources STILL fucked up? I hope those questions can be raised without the specter of racism. And I will point out that Africans that emigrate here are usually very racist toward American blacks. So, since Africans feel free to draw the distinction, I’ll happily accept that distinction when discussing Africa. [/quote]

I don’t at all think the question is racist. Reality is reality and only a fool would condemn a man for trying to understand it.

The geography argument applies more directly to Africa’s historical than to its contemporary challenges (though the linkage between historical and contemporary problems is not hard to see).

You will notice that in framing my argument I spoke about Hamlet and the Notre Dame–products of Europe’s relatively distant past. I do believe that it was the geography and temperate climate in which they lived that allowed our European and Asian ancestors to get such a leg up on their African counterparts.

Take the Mediterranean, which has arguably been the most intellectually, philosophically, culturally, and artistically productive geographical zone in human history. You don’t freeze to death in winter and you don’t overheat in summer. Far more importantly, a large population of domesticable indigenous animals roam the countryside. You can’t raise a giraffe for milk and you can’t teach a lion to carry equipment up a mountain slope.

Add to this a relatively calm and navigable central body of water through which contact with literally hundreds of different cultures and peoples is only a week’s journey away.

It is not surprising that some of our most celebrated civilizations flourished in such an area–regardless of their race/ethnicity. This is a key point. The racial composition of Ancient Egypt has been the subject of intense scholarly debate, but it is safe to say that modern scholarship classifies Egypt as an African civilization with primarily African ethnic heritage. There is no denying the relative sophistication of the Nile River Basin…the Egyptians made their Northern European contemporaries look like droopy-eyed armless children, to use the parlance of our times.

Contrast that with people living in Sub-Saharan Africa: same racial heritage, different (much harsher) geographical situation, almost no civilization to speak of.

I would say that, yes, geography played a major part in historical rise of Eurasia. (and the corresponding lack of comparable cultural/military achievements in Africa, Pre-contact Australia, etc). European civilization flourished because technology and climate permitted it the luxury to debate theology and build wonders. From there it is easy to play out the rest: the construction of ships capable of crossing the Atlantic and opening up a literal whole new world of opportunity, the domination of less advanced peoples leading ultimately to Colonialism (which goes a VERY long way in explaining current problems in Africa/the Middle East), the subsequent centuries-long flow of riches and resources away from (what is today) the developing world and toward Europe, and on and on until the year 2011.

The most important thing to note, however, is that the course by which humanity came to its current state was in fact a path of so many incalculable historical influences as to render a true understanding of it literally impossible. History is infinitely complex, and my post has been a survey of some of the simplest explanations of the modern world. They still may have some merit though.

45

[quote]Alffi wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Your original post exudes ignorance. I find it amusing that the white people screaming about how “White Christians are so smart and important” are usually the stupidest and least important people around.

A lot has already been touched on. Many of the greatest philosophers in human history predated Christ, so there goes the Christian part of your theory. Edward Gibbon argued that the Pax Romana (1st-2nd Centuries CE) was the single greatest and most peaceful time to live on Earth. At least in the Mediterranean world, it was certainly a more humane period than both the Early and High Middle Ages–during which Christianity was, for the first time, at the center of European life.

Why was it Europe and not Africa that produced Hamlet and the Mona Lisa and the Notre Dame? Geography. Europeans live in a temperate climate. Summers are warm and winters are cold but water is abundant and the temperature rarely kills. The animals scattered across Europe are generally harmless and remarkably domesticable. Africa is the opposite. Could Shakespeare have penned (quilled?) Othello if he had to spend every day walking ten miles to the river (you can’t live near it because predators congregate there every day), running from lions, hunting gazelles, all the while sweating like a whore in church? No.

Throughout most of the history of civilization, China was the most sophisticated place on Earth.

The torch of civilization was carried in large part by Islamic Arabs during the Dark Ages. Europeans laughed at the ridiculous Arabs because they “bathed every day”…many Brits bathed only once or twice a year. They even introduced the concept of zero to the stupid white Christians in 12th Century (it probably originated in India in the 9th Century).

Why did Europe (and later, North America) emerge as the powerhouse of the Modern Era? Diamond argues Guns, Germs, and Steel. Add to that large natural reserves of coal very close to the surface. Also, the willingness to colonize and mercilessly exploit foreign peoples.

Don’t get me wrong, I love me my whiteness. Vampire Weekend crooning on the radio as I roll to the hip downtown coffee shop in my Prius. The gentle breeze threatening to undo my skinny scarf and blow my pastel fedora out into the suburban Springtime. But fucktards like you need to understand that we arrived here today as a result of a huge collective effort on the part of literally millions of people of different religious, ethnic, and racial backgrounds. We sit on the shoulders of Giants–and many of them were black, Latino, Chinese, Arabian…even Eastern European I guess (I joke, I joke). What the fuck have you contributed to human civilization?[/quote]
Fact: Studies indicate that the average african is mentally retarded or at least borderline retarded.

You need a large enough population of sufficiently intelligent people to build a society which can carry a Shakespeare on its own shoulders. You need a group of people capable of carrying out simpler tasks and upholding order; government, food production, distribution, caretaking etc.
Then you need the geniuses to come up with higher technology and ideas for making the workers’ work more efficient. As this process goes on, a society develops to the degree that it can afford a philosopher or a poet to fulfill related needs. Before coming up with a Shakespeare, they should do something like inventing the wheel to help themselves. The africans have not done this.

The temperatures in many european countries are unforgiving (occasionally sub-arctic) and the natural resources poor, as opposed to the excellent resources of Africa. You can survive days without water but you can’t survive a night in freezing cold without proper shelter. In addition, you have almost nothing to eat and have to hunt on a terrain of thick snow. The domesticable animals would not be in love with those conditions either. And indians were able to domesticate the elephant.

If a group of people does not have the brains or willingness to go seafaring and thus come in contact with others, then it’s impossible to say that they would not have mercilessly colonized, if they could have. In order to do something, one must have the ability to do it first. If anecdotal evidence going back centuries as well as crime date from recent years is of any worth, they would have been far more merciless.

Here’s a small breakdown:
-Whites: Most inventions on record, highest technological achievements, most written languages, the most celebrated aesthetics, most celebrated musicians and artists, celebrated architecture, dominant religions and philosophies, bulk of world trade, like to stick to their own kind but also account for most developmental aid to other races
-North-East Asians: Smart, orderly, prone to tyranny, copy ideas from whites, racist towards other races and like to isolate, amazed by the beauty of whites
-Amerindians: Primitive, semi-urban societies/countries with whiter ones rising at the top, reputed to hold ancient, historical achievements in architecture and mathematics
-Indians: India, once ruled by whites, was reputedly a great civilization. These days, quite awful with primitive beliefs. India also gave Europe gypsies, a band of traveling criminals prone to mental retardation
-Arabs: reputed to hold historical achievements in math and science, have a history of empires and colonization, tendency to follow a violent and backwards (for all practical purposes) religion, more aggressive and criminal than whites, more sexual than whites; lust after white women
-Blacks: No achievements save for some piles of rocks celebrated as proof of civilization, jokesters in academia and Hollywood have attempted to build a reputation using sleight of hand and positive imagery

So there is some complexity to the picture. As it is, we must remember that diversity is not a strength if it leads to the white race destroying itself. Other races lust after white genes which, when allowed, causes us all to dissolve into a brownish mold, the very opposite of lies about diversity taught to us in school. [/quote]

Headhunter we know it’s you.

46

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Your original post exudes ignorance. I find it amusing that the white people screaming about how “White Christians are so smart and important” are usually the stupidest and least important people around.

A lot has already been touched on. Many of the greatest philosophers in human history predated Christ, so there goes the Christian part of your theory. Edward Gibbon argued that the Pax Romana (1st-2nd Centuries CE) was the single greatest and most peaceful time to live on Earth. At least in the Mediterranean world, it was certainly a more humane period than both the Early and High Middle Ages–during which Christianity was, for the first time, at the center of European life.

Why was it Europe and not Africa that produced Hamlet and the Mona Lisa and the Notre Dame? Geography. Europeans live in a temperate climate. Summers are warm and winters are cold but water is abundant and the temperature rarely kills. The animals scattered across Europe are generally harmless and remarkably domesticable. Africa is the opposite. Could Shakespeare have penned (quilled?) Othello if he had to spend every day walking ten miles to the river (you can’t live near it because predators congregate there every day), running from lions, hunting gazelles, all the while sweating like a whore in church? No.

Throughout most of the history of civilization, China was the most sophisticated place on Earth.

The torch of civilization was carried in large part by Islamic Arabs during the Dark Ages. Europeans laughed at the ridiculous Arabs because they “bathed every day”…many Brits bathed only once or twice a year. They even introduced the concept of zero to the stupid white Christians in 12th Century (it probably originated in India in the 9th Century).

Why did Europe (and later, North America) emerge as the powerhouse of the Modern Era? Diamond argues Guns, Germs, and Steel. Add to that large natural reserves of coal very close to the surface. Also, the willingness to colonize and mercilessly exploit foreign peoples.

Don’t get me wrong, I love me my whiteness. Vampire Weekend crooning on the radio as I roll to the hip downtown coffee shop in my Prius. The gentle breeze threatening to undo my skinny scarf and blow my pastel fedora out into the suburban Springtime. But fucktards like you need to understand that we arrived here today as a result of a huge collective effort on the part of literally millions of people of different religious, ethnic, and racial backgrounds. We sit on the shoulders of Giants–and many of them were black, Latino, Chinese, Arabian…even Eastern European I guess (I joke, I joke). What the fuck have you contributed to human civilization?[/quote]

Its sounds like you read robert marks book: the origin of the modern world, em I right?

47

[quote]florelius wrote:

Its sounds like you read robert marks book: the origin of the modern world, em I right?[/quote]

Lol nice catch. Got it from the coal and colonies argument I’m assuming? I thought it was a well-reasoned thesis. Any book about the origin of the modern world is going to simplify.

The sections about population strain and pressure-release valves such as plague and famine really resonated with me. If you liked it try William Rosen’s “Justinian’s Flea,” which touches on many of the same questions (though the action takes place in the 6th Century CE).

48

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

Its sounds like you read robert marks book: the origin of the modern world, em I right?[/quote]

Lol nice catch. Got it from the coal and colonies argument I’m assuming? I thought it was a well-reasoned thesis. Any book about the origin of the modern world is going to simplify.

The sections about population strain and pressure-release valves such as plague and famine really resonated with me. If you liked it try William Rosen’s “Justinian’s Flea,” which touches on many of the same questions (though the action takes place in the 6th Century CE).[/quote]

Yhea its a good read, but it is two and half years since I read it so I dont remember any details, just the main point, wich are that Europas world dominans the last 300 years have come to existence not because of our cultural heritage or by plan, but by incidents. Or in other words we where lucky( coal )according to robert marks.

I will check out williams rosens “justinian flea” when I get the time, but not now because I have a bachelor thesis to wright at the moment and that will occupy most of my time. work, training and my girlfriend will get the rest of it ( time that is ).

49

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]Valor wrote:

What I am stating is that some cultures ARE in fact better than others. I dont not think something as stupid as skin color determines anything.

[/quote]

I would disagree with this. Through out history they seem to rise and fall. There is like an ascension- apex- decadence cycle that each one goes through.

We wouldn’t be here now with nuclear power, high speed communication, or interplanetary travel without the foundations laid out by other cultures.

We actually aren’t any better, we’re just taking the ball and running with it for a couple of centuries.

In fact, unless something changes soon, we will begin a descent into cultural decadenceif we already haven’t.

[/quote]

So…who is picking up the ball? Mexico? China? Libya?

50

[quote]Valor wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Hey look, a stupid bigot asked a stupid bigot question, but predicated it with “non pc question”. Clearly if I point out how much of a dipshit racist this guy is, he’ll just say he’s not “being pc”.

Good job losing any credibility you might have had, ever.[/quote]

But HOW DARE…HOW DARE a WHITE MAN even SUGGEST that White Culture is anything other than complete and total shit? HOW DARE YOU!![/quote]

Wow.

51

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Valor wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Hey look, a stupid bigot asked a stupid bigot question, but predicated it with “non pc question”. Clearly if I point out how much of a dipshit racist this guy is, he’ll just say he’s not “being pc”.

Good job losing any credibility you might have had, ever.[/quote]

But HOW DARE…HOW DARE a WHITE MAN even SUGGEST that White Culture is anything other than complete and total shit? HOW DARE YOU!![/quote]

Wow.[/quote]

You shouldn’t be surprised. He’s just a product of a very sick society drunk on political correctness.

52

[quote]Valor wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]Valor wrote:

What I am stating is that some cultures ARE in fact better than others. I dont not think something as stupid as skin color determines anything.

[/quote]

I would disagree with this. Through out history they seem to rise and fall. There is like an ascension- apex- decadence cycle that each one goes through.

We wouldn’t be here now with nuclear power, high speed communication, or interplanetary travel without the foundations laid out by other cultures.

We actually aren’t any better, we’re just taking the ball and running with it for a couple of centuries.

In fact, unless something changes soon, we will begin a descent into cultural decadenceif we already haven’t.

[/quote]

So…who is picking up the ball? Mexico? China? Libya?[/quote]

Ah, it’s not so quick like that. Most cultures exist in these states for quite some time, and it seems to take a while for a new front runner to emerge.

53

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Valor wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Hey look, a stupid bigot asked a stupid bigot question, but predicated it with “non pc question”. Clearly if I point out how much of a dipshit racist this guy is, he’ll just say he’s not “being pc”.

Good job losing any credibility you might have had, ever.[/quote]

But HOW DARE…HOW DARE a WHITE MAN even SUGGEST that White Culture is anything other than complete and total shit? HOW DARE YOU!![/quote]

Wow.[/quote]

You shouldn’t be surprised. He’s just a product of a very sick society drunk on political correctness. [/quote]

Tongue in cheek or foot in mouth…I cannot decide which best describes you.

54

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]jre67t wrote:
As an Hispanic I often argue with my fellow mojo friends and black brothers about this. Not necessarily as whites being supreme, but why are most powerful countries excluding Asians, ran by the Anglos. There are examples of bad Anglo countries i.e. former Soviet Union States.

Look at South America yeah its doing well and good but in my opinion it could be a whole lot better, they are full of natural resources. Same as Mexico very rich in resources as well. Look at the majority of Africa and the Middle East and some of Indonesia and India. Why are the majority so downtrodden and in poverty?

Australia and New Zealand are doing well and are populated with Anglos as well. There must be something to this in my opinion. Are they smarter, better, stronger, No. But in my opinion I believe they have way of thinking of the greater of the herd than for the one. Mind you I do not include the Hitler types.

Also before you guys bash on me Im an Anchor baby from two wetbacks. The problem with America is not the Mexicans its the real Southern countries, i.e. Nicaragua, Salvador…so on and so on. Where real poverty is 90 percent of the population. [/quote]

I think it is the exact opposite, the “Anglos” invented individualism as an ideal and actually believed in it for a while.

Naturally, people like Hitler came along and put the herd before the individuals, because we would obviously all be so much better off if “we all just worked together”.

Only that we arent.

[/quote]
Exactly. The reason why the “white” countries seem to prosper more is because they have had governments that at one time allowed people some relative freedom to pursue their own interests. (How much more legislation, regulation, and monetary fascism will it take to turn the US into a Nicaragua, Honduras, or El Salvidor?)

The whole white race superiority question falls apart as soon as we witness all the Asians and Indians being invited to work in the US and European universities and high tech firms.

55

[quote]jre67t wrote:
As an Hispanic I often argue with my fellow mojo friends and black brothers about this. Not necessarily as whites being supreme, but why are most powerful countries excluding Asians, ran by the Anglos. There are examples of bad Anglo countries i.e. former Soviet Union States.
[/quote]

Soviet Union is not an Anglo country. Anglo indicates England or English speaking.

I think you’re referring to what is commonly called Caucasians (although not entirely correct either, but whatever).

[quote]
Also before you guys bash on me Im an Anchor baby from two wetbacks. The problem with America is not the Mexicans its the real Southern countries, i.e. Nicaragua, Salvador…so on and so on. Where real poverty is 90 percent of the population. [/quote]

I have no clue what you’re trying to do with this, but okay.

56

[quote]jre67t wrote:
Could be capped and plant but I somewhat agree with Valor on this issue. There is something to be said about why some races are better OFF than others, and please nobody say because the MAN is keeping us down.
Gotta go to work, lets not bash each other lets hear some good talk. I have always loved this topic when talking to fellow minorities now I can hear it from the evil white man. ( sarcasm ). [/quote]

I would suspect that the Oriental orientation of Catholicism which at the same time spread from Rome to the Europe by the monks helped the barbarians to stop with the violence (and influence individualism) while holding to hardiness and ideas of profit. And, on the flip side the Spanish (and other countries) to African and South America more towards family and sustenance than to profit and concur as was with the barbarians.

But I could be making up shit.

57

[quote]Bambi wrote:
byzantine clerics[/quote]

You do realise these are Christians? And, you do realize that both Judaism and Catholicism (and a tiny bit Protestantism) are oriental in nature? Just wondering…

58

[quote]Agressive Napkin wrote:

[quote]Valor wrote:
As the world changes I think a good argument can be made that White Christian (males…) have been the driving force that created the ideals of Liberty, Rule of Law, Equality, and personal responsability.

When you review World History. I think the above is fairly clear. Without question others have helped and Whites have made errors. But overall I think the point holds.

If…If I’m correct…where does that leave us as we abandon those values and as the plague Multiculturlism spreads?[/quote]

I’ll give you liberty I suppose. A lot of the founding principles of America and democratic freedom in general came out of the Enlightenment, which was run by predominately white Christians, BUT that isn’t to say that those were the only people with ideals of Liberty. Those are just the ones most influential on the modern west which we’re all familiar with. Also, the (implied) attempt to attribute the contributions of relatively few white Christians to the whole of the population is retarded. WTF fucktard. Did any white Christian you’ve ever met contribute significantly to advancing “Liberty, Rule of Law, and personal responsibility.”

Now, concerning white Christians as being the ones who most championed Rule of Law and Equality, that’s laughable. Hammurabi codified law while us whities were worshiping trees and killing each other indiscriminately. And equality? The people who started a massive inter-continental slave trade are the champions of equality throughout history? Please.

So while very very many of the ideals of Liberty et al can be attributed to some white Christians, much of it cannot. Also, to (implicitly) claim the achievements of relatively few people for the entire group is retarded.

Your question also presumes that being white and Christian has something to do with forming those ideas (which it might I guess). Perhaps other structural components of European society motivated these things.

In short, I can’t believe I even responded.[/quote]

Although I do agree with you, I would put the advancement of the West on not White Protestants (which I suppose he means by White Christians), but on Roman, and Byzantine men (some could be light skinned I suppose, but I have a hunch that most were semitic or dark skinned), who codified canon law and gave the west their legal system and ideals in which to operate government and society in which to flourish and prosper.

59

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Edward Gibbon argued that the Pax Romana (1st-2nd Centuries CE) was the single greatest and most peaceful time to live on Earth.[/quote]

Unless you were the enemies of the pagan Romans, because they had beaten you down so bad that you didn’t dare try to stand. This wasn’t a time of peace in the sense that there was absence of war, but of a time that no enemy was strong enough to fight. As well, it wasn’t peaceful for the Christians as they were routinely slew by emperors such as Nero and Marcus Aurelius.

60

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Edward Gibbon argued that the Pax Romana (1st-2nd Centuries CE) was the single greatest and most peaceful time to live on Earth.[/quote]

Unless you were the enemies of the pagan Romans, because they had beaten you down so bad that you didn’t dare try to stand. This wasn’t a time of peace in the sense that there was absence of war, but of a time that no enemy was strong enough to fight. As well, it wasn’t peaceful for the Christians as they were routinely slew by emperors such as Nero and Marcus Aurelius.[/quote]

This is certainly true. Any time you make a sweeping statement about history like Gibbons’ above, you will inevitably step on some toes. The Romans persecuted and even skirmished a few times during the Pax Romana. People were certainly unjustly beaten, tortured, etc.

However, no period of human history is wholly lacking in these charming attributes. Usually they add also large-scale war, holocausts, genocides, even the threat of nuclear annihilation (previously unavailable!). My point in shedding light on Gibbons’ comment was not to suggest that the Pax Romana was some sort of lost paradise. It was merely to demonstrate that a simplistic, black-and-white view of history in which yesterday was dark and barbarous until the heroic white Christians arrived is problematic. I would certainly rather have been a “barbarian” under Roman rule than a Jew under the Third Reich, or a Jew/Converso/Muslim/Protestant/homosexual in Seville during the Inquisition, or pretty much anyone under Stalin.