|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
It's pretty silly to have some sort of "contribution" dick measuring contest at all at the "civilization" level-the end product of the world we live in is a massive confluence of cultures and peoples from around the world that, for want of a nail, might have turned out another way entirely (no Silk Road for example would have drastically altered the flow of history).
Trying to say "if the west (whatever that entails) never existed the world would be x" or some similar metric for other cultures is pretty much meaningless, since the world would probably be so different as to be unrecognizable at the cultural level.
Which is why I would try to stay away from grandiose claims about one civilization being more important than another, at least at the "western/eastern" nonsense level (perhaps you can argue about Incas being the most influential group in the Americas, for example).
|
New York also passed their votes (89 Trump, 6 Kasich).
They can abstain even when the delegates are bound? Confusing.
|
It's to push Trump across the finish line in order to appear unified.
|
On July 20 2016 08:01 RoomOfMush wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2016 08:00 xDaunt wrote:On July 20 2016 07:58 RoomOfMush wrote:On July 20 2016 07:52 xDaunt wrote:On July 20 2016 07:48 Plansix wrote:On July 20 2016 07:45 xDaunt wrote:On July 20 2016 07:43 Plansix wrote:On July 20 2016 07:38 xDaunt wrote:On July 20 2016 07:32 Plansix wrote:
Xdaunt: I taught history before I went into law. I have well beyond a rudimentary understanding. You are just wrong by almost every metric.
And second: that specific line, "what other sub group(race) has contributed more to civilization t(han the white race?)" is straight out of a clan meeting. It is white supremacist talking points 101. You many not be familiar because you seem willingly ignorant on the subject, but it is a common argument used by white supremacist. And it is born of knowing every little about history as a whole. Welp, facts are facts. Given that western culture is largely a creation of the white race (though I'll note that not all whites are part of western culture), and given the relative supremacy of western culture in the historical record, we run into a rather uncomfortable predicament, don't we? Civilization is larger than just western culture. And the majority of the accomplishments of western cultures are on the foundation of other races discoverys. Yeah, and we go all the way back to some form of monkey by that logic, which is why it's absurd to place undue emphasis on foundational issues. Sheer cultural dominance is a far better metric. Most historians don't really care about that metric. But it's works nice for your argument, so I can see how you would like it. And if that was the metric, China wins hands down. China has never has never had global dominance at any level. And we aren't too far removed (less than 100 years) from when China was little more than a colony to Western powers and countries emulating Western powers (Japan). No country has ever had global dominance at any level. Most any country has ever achieved was 1 continent and maybe large parts of 1 or 2 others. China had its prime time some thousands years ago. So had Rome, the british empire, the spanish empire, the nazis and many more. We aren't talking about countries, we're talking about culture. Before WW1, Western culture literally controlled the entire fucking planet. I heavily doubt that. How do you measure that? Where are your sources?
Go read up on European/Western imperialism and then come back here and argue with the big boys.
|
On July 20 2016 08:01 Half the Sky wrote:
New York also passed their votes (89 Trump, 6 Kasich).
They can abstain even when the delegates are bound? Confusing.
From what i read, if a state passes it is ask again after all the other states cast their vote. RNC wants New York to push Trump over the line.
|
On July 20 2016 08:00 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2016 07:58 RoomOfMush wrote:On July 20 2016 07:52 xDaunt wrote:On July 20 2016 07:48 Plansix wrote:On July 20 2016 07:45 xDaunt wrote:On July 20 2016 07:43 Plansix wrote:On July 20 2016 07:38 xDaunt wrote:On July 20 2016 07:32 Plansix wrote:
Xdaunt: I taught history before I went into law. I have well beyond a rudimentary understanding. You are just wrong by almost every metric.
And second: that specific line, "what other sub group(race) has contributed more to civilization t(han the white race?)" is straight out of a clan meeting. It is white supremacist talking points 101. You many not be familiar because you seem willingly ignorant on the subject, but it is a common argument used by white supremacist. And it is born of knowing every little about history as a whole. Welp, facts are facts. Given that western culture is largely a creation of the white race (though I'll note that not all whites are part of western culture), and given the relative supremacy of western culture in the historical record, we run into a rather uncomfortable predicament, don't we? Civilization is larger than just western culture. And the majority of the accomplishments of western cultures are on the foundation of other races discoverys. Yeah, and we go all the way back to some form of monkey by that logic, which is why it's absurd to place undue emphasis on foundational issues. Sheer cultural dominance is a far better metric. Most historians don't really care about that metric. But it's works nice for your argument, so I can see how you would like it. And if that was the metric, China wins hands down. China has never has never had global dominance at any level. And we aren't too far removed (less than 100 years) from when China was little more than a colony to Western powers and countries emulating Western powers (Japan). No country has ever had global dominance at any level. Most any country has ever achieved was 1 continent and maybe large parts of 1 or 2 others. China had its prime time some thousands years ago. So had Rome, the british empire, the spanish empire, the nazis and many more. We aren't talking about countries, we're talking about culture. Before WW1, Western culture literally controlled the entire fucking planet.
For a hot minute and then they imploded. A spec on the pagers of history. And imperialism isnt a western invention or accomplishment.
|
Let's just make it easy and go back to the article that I was criticizing:
Western civilization, and indeed the modern global civilization built largely by the West, would have been impossible without the contributions to civilization from the people of the rest of the world. This is not to disparage the achievements of the West; nor should we ignore the historical failings of other civilizations. But we ought to remember and celebrate the contributions to civilization from all the peoples of the world.
Today, as the era of Western domination draws to a close and as other nations have borrowed much of the best from the West, we should expect to see many more contributions to civilization from outside the West, and from among non-White or non-Christian people in the West itself.
In those bolded passages above, we see exactly where the ultimate point is conceded.
|
Christ even the delegates of North Dakota can't make the state sound exciting.
|
On July 20 2016 08:04 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2016 08:00 xDaunt wrote:On July 20 2016 07:58 RoomOfMush wrote:On July 20 2016 07:52 xDaunt wrote:On July 20 2016 07:48 Plansix wrote:On July 20 2016 07:45 xDaunt wrote:On July 20 2016 07:43 Plansix wrote:On July 20 2016 07:38 xDaunt wrote:On July 20 2016 07:32 Plansix wrote:
Xdaunt: I taught history before I went into law. I have well beyond a rudimentary understanding. You are just wrong by almost every metric.
And second: that specific line, "what other sub group(race) has contributed more to civilization t(han the white race?)" is straight out of a clan meeting. It is white supremacist talking points 101. You many not be familiar because you seem willingly ignorant on the subject, but it is a common argument used by white supremacist. And it is born of knowing every little about history as a whole. Welp, facts are facts. Given that western culture is largely a creation of the white race (though I'll note that not all whites are part of western culture), and given the relative supremacy of western culture in the historical record, we run into a rather uncomfortable predicament, don't we? Civilization is larger than just western culture. And the majority of the accomplishments of western cultures are on the foundation of other races discoverys. Yeah, and we go all the way back to some form of monkey by that logic, which is why it's absurd to place undue emphasis on foundational issues. Sheer cultural dominance is a far better metric. Most historians don't really care about that metric. But it's works nice for your argument, so I can see how you would like it. And if that was the metric, China wins hands down. China has never has never had global dominance at any level. And we aren't too far removed (less than 100 years) from when China was little more than a colony to Western powers and countries emulating Western powers (Japan). No country has ever had global dominance at any level. Most any country has ever achieved was 1 continent and maybe large parts of 1 or 2 others. China had its prime time some thousands years ago. So had Rome, the british empire, the spanish empire, the nazis and many more. We aren't talking about countries, we're talking about culture. Before WW1, Western culture literally controlled the entire fucking planet. For a hot minute and then they imploded. A spec on the pagers of history. And imperialism isnt a western invention or accomplishment.
And what replaced it? A liberal world order imposed by a Western power -- the US -- over most of the planet.
|
On July 20 2016 08:02 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
It's to push Trump across the finish line in order to appear unified.
On July 20 2016 08:03 maze. wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2016 08:01 Half the Sky wrote:
New York also passed their votes (89 Trump, 6 Kasich).
They can abstain even when the delegates are bound? Confusing. From what i read, if a state passes it is ask again after all the other states cast their vote. RNC wants New York to push Trump over the line.
Ah okay, now that makes sense. Didn't realise they could do that.
|
On July 20 2016 08:01 TheTenthDoc wrote:
It's pretty silly to have some sort of "contribution" dick measuring contest at all at the "civilization" level-the end product of the world we live in is a massive confluence of cultures and peoples from around the world that, for want of a nail, might have turned out another way entirely (no Silk Road for example would have drastically altered the flow of history).
Trying to say "if the west (whatever that entials) never existed the world would be x" or some similar metric for other cultures is pretty much meaningless, since the world would probably be so different as to be unrecognizable at the cultural level.
The whole issue is that it wasn't strictly a terrible thing to say. The guy who said it has been blasted and slandered by the media, and even many in this thread at the time it was said, as an ignorant/incompetent racist.
He wasn't ignoring other contributions to civilization from other cultures. He's just making the argument that 'ours is the best!' at a political convention. That isn't really that terrible of a thing to say. I don't know why being proud your country/culture is a completely acceptable and promoted thing unless you're a WASP then it's fucking regressive and racist.
|
On July 20 2016 08:02 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2016 08:01 RoomOfMush wrote:On July 20 2016 08:00 xDaunt wrote:On July 20 2016 07:58 RoomOfMush wrote:On July 20 2016 07:52 xDaunt wrote:On July 20 2016 07:48 Plansix wrote:On July 20 2016 07:45 xDaunt wrote:On July 20 2016 07:43 Plansix wrote:On July 20 2016 07:38 xDaunt wrote:On July 20 2016 07:32 Plansix wrote:
Xdaunt: I taught history before I went into law. I have well beyond a rudimentary understanding. You are just wrong by almost every metric.
And second: that specific line, "what other sub group(race) has contributed more to civilization t(han the white race?)" is straight out of a clan meeting. It is white supremacist talking points 101. You many not be familiar because you seem willingly ignorant on the subject, but it is a common argument used by white supremacist. And it is born of knowing every little about history as a whole. Welp, facts are facts. Given that western culture is largely a creation of the white race (though I'll note that not all whites are part of western culture), and given the relative supremacy of western culture in the historical record, we run into a rather uncomfortable predicament, don't we? Civilization is larger than just western culture. And the majority of the accomplishments of western cultures are on the foundation of other races discoverys. Yeah, and we go all the way back to some form of monkey by that logic, which is why it's absurd to place undue emphasis on foundational issues. Sheer cultural dominance is a far better metric. Most historians don't really care about that metric. But it's works nice for your argument, so I can see how you would like it. And if that was the metric, China wins hands down. China has never has never had global dominance at any level. And we aren't too far removed (less than 100 years) from when China was little more than a colony to Western powers and countries emulating Western powers (Japan). No country has ever had global dominance at any level. Most any country has ever achieved was 1 continent and maybe large parts of 1 or 2 others. China had its prime time some thousands years ago. So had Rome, the british empire, the spanish empire, the nazis and many more. We aren't talking about countries, we're talking about culture. Before WW1, Western culture literally controlled the entire fucking planet. I heavily doubt that. How do you measure that? Where are your sources? Go read up on European/Western imperialism and then come back here and argue with the big boys.
Is that supposed to be an argument? Or a sign of resignation?
|
On July 20 2016 08:02 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2016 08:01 RoomOfMush wrote:On July 20 2016 08:00 xDaunt wrote:On July 20 2016 07:58 RoomOfMush wrote:On July 20 2016 07:52 xDaunt wrote:On July 20 2016 07:48 Plansix wrote:On July 20 2016 07:45 xDaunt wrote:On July 20 2016 07:43 Plansix wrote:On July 20 2016 07:38 xDaunt wrote:On July 20 2016 07:32 Plansix wrote:
Xdaunt: I taught history before I went into law. I have well beyond a rudimentary understanding. You are just wrong by almost every metric.
And second: that specific line, "what other sub group(race) has contributed more to civilization t(han the white race?)" is straight out of a clan meeting. It is white supremacist talking points 101. You many not be familiar because you seem willingly ignorant on the subject, but it is a common argument used by white supremacist. And it is born of knowing every little about history as a whole. Welp, facts are facts. Given that western culture is largely a creation of the white race (though I'll note that not all whites are part of western culture), and given the relative supremacy of western culture in the historical record, we run into a rather uncomfortable predicament, don't we? Civilization is larger than just western culture. And the majority of the accomplishments of western cultures are on the foundation of other races discoverys. Yeah, and we go all the way back to some form of monkey by that logic, which is why it's absurd to place undue emphasis on foundational issues. Sheer cultural dominance is a far better metric. Most historians don't really care about that metric. But it's works nice for your argument, so I can see how you would like it. And if that was the metric, China wins hands down. China has never has never had global dominance at any level. And we aren't too far removed (less than 100 years) from when China was little more than a colony to Western powers and countries emulating Western powers (Japan). No country has ever had global dominance at any level. Most any country has ever achieved was 1 continent and maybe large parts of 1 or 2 others. China had its prime time some thousands years ago. So had Rome, the british empire, the spanish empire, the nazis and many more. We aren't talking about countries, we're talking about culture. Before WW1, Western culture literally controlled the entire fucking planet. I heavily doubt that. How do you measure that? Where are your sources? Go read up on European/Western imperialism and then come back here and argue with the big boys.
Inactive writer continues to abuse the fact that no one can report him by passive agressive insulting people. Having read up on the subjects you listed and much more, your reasoning is myopic, shallow and filled with the typical western hyper focus on recent history.
|
United States43482 Posts
On July 20 2016 08:01 RoomOfMush wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2016 08:00 xDaunt wrote:On July 20 2016 07:58 RoomOfMush wrote:On July 20 2016 07:52 xDaunt wrote:On July 20 2016 07:48 Plansix wrote:On July 20 2016 07:45 xDaunt wrote:On July 20 2016 07:43 Plansix wrote:On July 20 2016 07:38 xDaunt wrote:On July 20 2016 07:32 Plansix wrote:
Xdaunt: I taught history before I went into law. I have well beyond a rudimentary understanding. You are just wrong by almost every metric.
And second: that specific line, "what other sub group(race) has contributed more to civilization t(han the white race?)" is straight out of a clan meeting. It is white supremacist talking points 101. You many not be familiar because you seem willingly ignorant on the subject, but it is a common argument used by white supremacist. And it is born of knowing every little about history as a whole. Welp, facts are facts. Given that western culture is largely a creation of the white race (though I'll note that not all whites are part of western culture), and given the relative supremacy of western culture in the historical record, we run into a rather uncomfortable predicament, don't we? Civilization is larger than just western culture. And the majority of the accomplishments of western cultures are on the foundation of other races discoverys. Yeah, and we go all the way back to some form of monkey by that logic, which is why it's absurd to place undue emphasis on foundational issues. Sheer cultural dominance is a far better metric. Most historians don't really care about that metric. But it's works nice for your argument, so I can see how you would like it. And if that was the metric, China wins hands down. China has never has never had global dominance at any level. And we aren't too far removed (less than 100 years) from when China was little more than a colony to Western powers and countries emulating Western powers (Japan). No country has ever had global dominance at any level. Most any country has ever achieved was 1 continent and maybe large parts of 1 or 2 others. China had its prime time some thousands years ago. So had Rome, the british empire, the spanish empire, the nazis and many more. We aren't talking about countries, we're talking about culture. Before WW1, Western culture literally controlled the entire fucking planet. I heavily doubt that. How do you measure that? Where are your sources?
It kinda did. Like the vast majority of all economic activity was within the sphere of the European powers and the United States. The problem with his argument isn't recent history, it's that it cherry picks the last few centuries and ignores everything that came before them.
I mean sure, if he'd divided the world into "uncontacted remote Amazonian tribe" and "the rest of us" and attributed civilization to "the rest of us", well, can't argue with that, we have civilization and we know the uncontacted tribe didn't do it because they're uncontacted. But "white people" and "the rest of them", that's a much more interdependent argument and given how shitty white guys were at the level 1 stuff like leaving the hunter gatherer stage it's a pretty big reach. White civilization was provided with an extremely high platform from which to reach and while it did so in a dramatically successful fashion as each subsequent reach raised the platform higher it is absolutely a mistake to ignore the platform.
|
On July 20 2016 08:07 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2016 08:02 xDaunt wrote:On July 20 2016 08:01 RoomOfMush wrote:On July 20 2016 08:00 xDaunt wrote:On July 20 2016 07:58 RoomOfMush wrote:On July 20 2016 07:52 xDaunt wrote:On July 20 2016 07:48 Plansix wrote:On July 20 2016 07:45 xDaunt wrote:On July 20 2016 07:43 Plansix wrote:On July 20 2016 07:38 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Welp, facts are facts. Given that western culture is largely a creation of the white race (though I'll note that not all whites are part of western culture), and given the relative supremacy of western culture in the historical record, we run into a rather uncomfortable predicament, don't we? Civilization is larger than just western culture. And the majority of the accomplishments of western cultures are on the foundation of other races discoverys. Yeah, and we go all the way back to some form of monkey by that logic, which is why it's absurd to place undue emphasis on foundational issues. Sheer cultural dominance is a far better metric. Most historians don't really care about that metric. But it's works nice for your argument, so I can see how you would like it. And if that was the metric, China wins hands down. China has never has never had global dominance at any level. And we aren't too far removed (less than 100 years) from when China was little more than a colony to Western powers and countries emulating Western powers (Japan). No country has ever had global dominance at any level. Most any country has ever achieved was 1 continent and maybe large parts of 1 or 2 others. China had its prime time some thousands years ago. So had Rome, the british empire, the spanish empire, the nazis and many more. We aren't talking about countries, we're talking about culture. Before WW1, Western culture literally controlled the entire fucking planet. I heavily doubt that. How do you measure that? Where are your sources? Go read up on European/Western imperialism and then come back here and argue with the big boys. Inactive writer continues to abuse the fact that no one can report him by passive agressive insulting people. Having read up on the subjects you listed and much more, your reasoning is myopic, shallow and filled with the typical western hyper focus on recent history.
Underlined is literally your post history so you really have no room to talk.
|
On July 20 2016 08:07 RoomOfMush wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2016 08:02 xDaunt wrote:On July 20 2016 08:01 RoomOfMush wrote:On July 20 2016 08:00 xDaunt wrote:On July 20 2016 07:58 RoomOfMush wrote:On July 20 2016 07:52 xDaunt wrote:On July 20 2016 07:48 Plansix wrote:On July 20 2016 07:45 xDaunt wrote:On July 20 2016 07:43 Plansix wrote:On July 20 2016 07:38 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Welp, facts are facts. Given that western culture is largely a creation of the white race (though I'll note that not all whites are part of western culture), and given the relative supremacy of western culture in the historical record, we run into a rather uncomfortable predicament, don't we? Civilization is larger than just western culture. And the majority of the accomplishments of western cultures are on the foundation of other races discoverys. Yeah, and we go all the way back to some form of monkey by that logic, which is why it's absurd to place undue emphasis on foundational issues. Sheer cultural dominance is a far better metric. Most historians don't really care about that metric. But it's works nice for your argument, so I can see how you would like it. And if that was the metric, China wins hands down. China has never has never had global dominance at any level. And we aren't too far removed (less than 100 years) from when China was little more than a colony to Western powers and countries emulating Western powers (Japan). No country has ever had global dominance at any level. Most any country has ever achieved was 1 continent and maybe large parts of 1 or 2 others. China had its prime time some thousands years ago. So had Rome, the british empire, the spanish empire, the nazis and many more. We aren't talking about countries, we're talking about culture. Before WW1, Western culture literally controlled the entire fucking planet. I heavily doubt that. How do you measure that? Where are your sources? Go read up on European/Western imperialism and then come back here and argue with the big boys. Is that supposed to be an argument? Or a sign of resignation?
I'm merely pointing out that there's no point arguing with you when you don't even understand the historical record. That's a bare minimum. It's an undeniable fact that that the West owned the world prior to WW1. If you are unaware of that fact, then there isn't much to discuss.
|
I seriously thought they were going to boo when the guy mentioned soccer lol.
|
On July 20 2016 07:52 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2016 07:48 Plansix wrote:On July 20 2016 07:45 xDaunt wrote:On July 20 2016 07:43 Plansix wrote:On July 20 2016 07:38 xDaunt wrote:On July 20 2016 07:32 Plansix wrote:
Xdaunt: I taught history before I went into law. I have well beyond a rudimentary understanding. You are just wrong by almost every metric.
And second: that specific line, "what other sub group(race) has contributed more to civilization t(han the white race?)" is straight out of a clan meeting. It is white supremacist talking points 101. You many not be familiar because you seem willingly ignorant on the subject, but it is a common argument used by white supremacist. And it is born of knowing every little about history as a whole. Welp, facts are facts. Given that western culture is largely a creation of the white race (though I'll note that not all whites are part of western culture), and given the relative supremacy of western culture in the historical record, we run into a rather uncomfortable predicament, don't we? Civilization is larger than just western culture. And the majority of the accomplishments of western cultures are on the foundation of other races discoverys. Yeah, and we go all the way back to some form of monkey by that logic, which is why it's absurd to place undue emphasis on foundational issues. Sheer cultural dominance is a far better metric. Most historians don't really care about that metric. But it's works nice for your argument, so I can see how you would like it. And if that was the metric, China wins hands down. China has never has never had global dominance at any level. And we aren't too far removed (less than 100 years) from when China was little more than a colony to Western powers and countries emulating Western powers (Japan).
So the according to your metrics, it only matter who was the last dominant power. Because they will surely have contributed the most advances in the recent past, and foundations don't matter.
This is patently ridiculous.
The whole question of which civilizations were the most influential and which added the most to human advances is unanswerable, because so much just isn't well defined. What is a continuous civilisation?
Is it Greek ---> Romans --->european middle ages?
Or is it Greek - Roman - Byzantine - Ottoman - Muslim?
Are the ancient greeks part of "white" civilization? Because they were pretty brown. Are jews white? Russians?
What about people like the mongols, who didn't really make a lot of advances themselves, but who were really good at taking over advances and spreading them by conquering and murdering shitloads of people?
And how do you value or compare advances like gunpowder, crop rotations, the breeding of horses, steel, a number system, writing, accounting, nuclear fission, electricity, geometry, ploughs, irrigation, vessels capable of braving high seas, a sextant, telescopes, computers, mustard gas, sewers and many more? I don't see any metric which makes any sense for that.
The whole premise is just nonsensical, and not meant to be thought about to hard or to critical. It is only about telling that "we" are better than "those people" with pseudohistorical nonsense. It's similarly intelligent as phrenology. Of course white people are better than other races, just take a look at how their skull is slightly different here and there, that shows that the others are of lesser intelligence and impulse control.
|
On July 20 2016 08:05 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2016 08:04 Plansix wrote:On July 20 2016 08:00 xDaunt wrote:On July 20 2016 07:58 RoomOfMush wrote:On July 20 2016 07:52 xDaunt wrote:On July 20 2016 07:48 Plansix wrote:On July 20 2016 07:45 xDaunt wrote:On July 20 2016 07:43 Plansix wrote:On July 20 2016 07:38 xDaunt wrote:On July 20 2016 07:32 Plansix wrote:
Xdaunt: I taught history before I went into law. I have well beyond a rudimentary understanding. You are just wrong by almost every metric.
And second: that specific line, "what other sub group(race) has contributed more to civilization t(han the white race?)" is straight out of a clan meeting. It is white supremacist talking points 101. You many not be familiar because you seem willingly ignorant on the subject, but it is a common argument used by white supremacist. And it is born of knowing every little about history as a whole. Welp, facts are facts. Given that western culture is largely a creation of the white race (though I'll note that not all whites are part of western culture), and given the relative supremacy of western culture in the historical record, we run into a rather uncomfortable predicament, don't we? Civilization is larger than just western culture. And the majority of the accomplishments of western cultures are on the foundation of other races discoverys. Yeah, and we go all the way back to some form of monkey by that logic, which is why it's absurd to place undue emphasis on foundational issues. Sheer cultural dominance is a far better metric. Most historians don't really care about that metric. But it's works nice for your argument, so I can see how you would like it. And if that was the metric, China wins hands down. China has never has never had global dominance at any level. And we aren't too far removed (less than 100 years) from when China was little more than a colony to Western powers and countries emulating Western powers (Japan). No country has ever had global dominance at any level. Most any country has ever achieved was 1 continent and maybe large parts of 1 or 2 others. China had its prime time some thousands years ago. So had Rome, the british empire, the spanish empire, the nazis and many more. We aren't talking about countries, we're talking about culture. Before WW1, Western culture literally controlled the entire fucking planet. For a hot minute and then they imploded. A spec on the pagers of history. And imperialism isnt a western invention or accomplishment. And what replaced it? A liberal world order imposed by a Western power -- the US -- over most of the planet.
And yet we we lead in nothing but military power and raw size. Not education, or health, or discovery. We are, in many ways and empire in decline. But we refuse to accept our faults and short comming.
But don't let that stop you from patting yourself on the back for our short 200 years of global relevance. Out if the thousands that make up human history.
|
On July 20 2016 08:09 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2016 08:07 Plansix wrote:On July 20 2016 08:02 xDaunt wrote:On July 20 2016 08:01 RoomOfMush wrote:On July 20 2016 08:00 xDaunt wrote:On July 20 2016 07:58 RoomOfMush wrote:On July 20 2016 07:52 xDaunt wrote:On July 20 2016 07:48 Plansix wrote:On July 20 2016 07:45 xDaunt wrote:On July 20 2016 07:43 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Civilization is larger than just western culture. And the majority of the accomplishments of western cultures are on the foundation of other races discoverys. Yeah, and we go all the way back to some form of monkey by that logic, which is why it's absurd to place undue emphasis on foundational issues. Sheer cultural dominance is a far better metric. Most historians don't really care about that metric. But it's works nice for your argument, so I can see how you would like it. And if that was the metric, China wins hands down. China has never has never had global dominance at any level. And we aren't too far removed (less than 100 years) from when China was little more than a colony to Western powers and countries emulating Western powers (Japan). No country has ever had global dominance at any level. Most any country has ever achieved was 1 continent and maybe large parts of 1 or 2 others. China had its prime time some thousands years ago. So had Rome, the british empire, the spanish empire, the nazis and many more. We aren't talking about countries, we're talking about culture. Before WW1, Western culture literally controlled the entire fucking planet. I heavily doubt that. How do you measure that? Where are your sources? Go read up on European/Western imperialism and then come back here and argue with the big boys. Inactive writer continues to abuse the fact that no one can report him by passive agressive insulting people. Having read up on the subjects you listed and much more, your reasoning is myopic, shallow and filled with the typical western hyper focus on recent history. Underlined is literally your post history so you really have no room to talk.
I get warned when I cross the line.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
