Are we more civilized today than we were 100 years ago?

[JoeMarron]

And what are the great accomplishments of these "empires"? Oh wait, there's aren't any. To even call them "empires" is misleading.


Except Africa has tons of natural resources, is not isolated at all (it is actually closer to the Middle East, the cradle of civilization, than Western Europe, let alone China and Japan), has lots of arable land, etc.

Regardless of their accomplishments they qualify as empires. Lets get to the root of this discussion. People with your mindset like to believe that different groups of people are less advanced because of inherent genetic inferiority. When you look at the evidence it makes absolutely no sense to come to that conclusion. There's a billion different factors determining how humans developed. People in the Americas didn't have horses or many animals able to be domesticated. People in Africa had a giant goddamn desert and jungle isolating them from the rest of the world. The list goes on and on. You can't possibly expect everyone to advance in the same way with so many different variables in play. To think that one group of people is superior or inferior because of advancement is like gathering a group of people for a race, starting them at different spots, and then claiming that the one who won who happened to have a 20 yard head start is faster than everyone else.

There's a reason this nonsense died out. People looked at the evidence and realized it didn't make any sense yet you still have ignorant fools in 2013 preaching it as gospel. Yes there are many groups of people today that need to get their sh!t together. Yes the current popular mindset of giving special handouts (affirmative action, welfare etc.) to minorities needs to stop and is more destructive than beneficial. No white civilization isn't to blame for everything. However, asinine beliefs like yours needs to die out if humanity is going to advance as a species.

 

[Bokanovsky]

However, asinine beliefs like yours needs to die out if humanity is going to advance as a species.

Well, I'm sorry if my asinine beliefs stand in the way of human progress

Your isolation argument does not hold water once you start looking at historical facts. Africa was connected to Europe and Middle East through a network of trade routes since time immemorial. Trans-Saharan trade has been around since before Christ...same with trade between East Africa and Middle East/India. Not to mention trade along the river Nile, which goes back to the days of the pharaohs. The problem is not that Africa did not have trade contacts with the rest of the world...it did. The problem is that Africans did not have anything to trade...except for each other.

How do you explain the fact that India and China, being separated from the rest of the world by the Himalayas, Tibet and the Gobi desert managed to develop highly advanced civilizations independent of the rest of the world, while Sub-Saharan Africans couldn't even master basic writing?

 

[JoeMarron]

Well, I'm sorry if my asinine beliefs stand in the way of human progress

Your isolation argument does not hold water once you start looking at historical facts. Africa was connected to Europe and Middle East through a network of trade routes since time immemorial. Trans-Saharan trade has been around since before Christ...same with trade between East Africa and Middle East/India. Not to mention trade along the river Nile, which goes back to the days of the pharaohs. The problem is not that Africa did not have trade contacts with the rest of the world...it did. The problem is that Africans did not have anything to trade...except for each other.

How do you explain the fact that India and China, being separated from the rest of the world by the Himalayas, Tibet and the Gobi desert managed to develop highly advanced civilizations independent of the rest of the world, while Sub-Saharan Africans couldn't even master basic writing?

The amount of isolation is just one of many factors that affects a group of peoples development. Why do you think they had nothing to trade? Sub saharan Africa simply wasn't as sutiable to sustain a civilization as Europe or India and China. The civilizations in the fertile cresecnt and China were the only ones who developed writing. The rest of the world borrowed from them.

You're only looking at intelligence, ability, whatever you want to call it as the sole reason for why Africa isn't as advanced and ignoring a host of other factors that are involved in how a society developes. Your logic is the equivalent of looking at a poor person and judging him as incompetent while ignoring his upbringing, the education available to him, the state of the economy, etc. Its fine to take pride in the accomplishments of your ancestors but put your racial pride aside for a moment and use some logic for a change.

 

[( . )( . )]

Yes they were primitive compared to other empires and yes whitey isn't to blame. Its kinda hard to build an advance empire in an isolated land full of jungles and deserts. If whitey was in Africa instead of blacks they would've had similar results.

:crackup: Is this kid for real? Yeah damn those logistics !!!! :cuss:

 

[JoeMarron]

:crackup: Is this kid for real? Yeah damn those logistics !!!! :cuss:

Lol can you guys really not grasp such a simple concept? Go back to some time in prehistory, take all the people in Europe and all the people in Africa and have them switch places. You honestly believe that the two groups would develop in similar ways when they live in completely different environments? If every continent was an exact copy of each other then you guys would have a valid argument but that's simply not the case. Plus this is just one variable that influences how societies develop. There have been wars, even single battles in which the opposite result would have resulted in a dramatically different world. What would the world look like if the bubonic plague didn't ravage Europe? How would the world be different if Genghis Khan was ran over by a horse and killed as a child?

It just so happened that the right circumstances lined up for western civilization to dominate the world today. Sure it could be that certain groups are inherently superior but there's simply no convincing evidence for that. The fact that people can ignore all of these variables and make blanket statements that certain groups of people are inherently superior is laughably ridiculous. I know I probably won't change any minds here but calling people out on their bullsh!t is amusing. Hopefully the mods will let this go on a bit longer before the axe comes down.

 

[Fatal Jay]

I wish the racism would stop in this part of the forum, it seriously been crazy since the trayvon martin trial.

A man is a man. We all bleed the same. You have evil and good in all races. You can not generalize a whole group.

 

[Stagger Lee]

The important point is that one group (whether female or some other "minority" group) that is or claims it is not doing as well wants to falsely blame another group for it (white males). So the solution is to take more away from whitey (average white males) who is already busting his ass to keep his head above water- jobs, college slots, lowered standards.

It's the same sh!t feminist do. They have lackluster achievements (or just want more achievement without earning it) and blame men for it. So men are forced to give earned resources/power to females. The females just become more lackluster and demand more. It's the same tactic and ponting it out doesn't make one sexist or racists. That would be like saying pointing out sexism/racism is sexist/racist.

 

[JoeMarron]

He may just be referring to your use of the word "whitey". Poor taste haha. Otherwise, I agree with you. Empirical social sciences are a joke and easily dismissed...unless you have a motive for adopting it. Thus racists and non-racists can cite dozens of studies proving their own biases. Simply put, this issue is unknowable, irrelevant, and a tool to divide us.

If you WANT race to be the predominant issue, it will be. If you don't want it too, there are probably 100+ different variables to choose from. To pretend like race is some obvious factor makes no sense at all and doesnt even account for dramatic distinctions within a race.

Hah I said whitey because that's what Stagger Lee said in the post that I quoted. I think the reason attitudes like this exists is because the state of society today. The fact that many minorities are in less than ideal situations, some even completely deviant and a detriment to society, combine that with current laws and attitudes that encourage deviancy (excessive welfare, white guilt etc.) and of course people are gonna be pissed. The situation still needs to be looked at objectively though instead of making irrational emotionally charged claims against an entire group of people.

The important point is that one group (whether female or some other "minority" group) that is or claims it is not doing as well wants to falsely blame another group for it (white males). So the solution is to take more away from whitey (average white males) who is already busting his ass to keep his head above water- jobs, college slots, lowered standards.

It's the same sh!t feminist do. They have lackluster achievements (or just want more achievement without earning it) and blame men for it. So men are forced to give earned resources/power to females. The females just become more lackluster and demand more. It's the same tactic and ponting it out doesn't make one sexist or racists. That would be like saying pointing out sexism/racism is sexist/racist.

I actually agree with you. Handouts and blaming others is just enabling bad behavior. Its when people start claiming genetic superiority that I have a problem with. Every man of every race can excel under the right conditions.