lictor616 Posted April 22, 2009 Report Posted April 22, 2009 How a few White men could conquer so great country like the Aztec Empire with such ease? Indians were afraid of horses, guns, cannons, and had a legend about the god of wind Quetzalkoatl (or Quetzalcoatl, taken from Toltecs, name means “feathered serpent” or “plumed serpent”, probably a merge of two deities) - a good white and bearded god, who gave them laws, alphabet and taught many technological inventions, then departed to the East Sea, and who some day would return from East on a “winged ship” to punish bad people and help poor and oppressed (every second Indian culture in Central America had a myth like that, so you may find also another versions of this legend). Therefore at the beginning Cortes was taken for Quetzalkoatl (Quetzalcoatl). And even if Montezuma II was not sure Quetzalkoatl (Quetzalcoatl) really returned, he had to take into account beliefs of his subjects (i.e. people who lived under his rule). http://www.geocities.com/historymech/rewpcamer.html I see, white people were hopelessly inferior to you... and so foul play MUST have been the factor right? Its not like Europeans were ever a particularly affluent people, or a people of discoverers, conquerors and inventors. Just melanin deficient cave beasts who got lucky century after century in dominating the world outright... More of the same anti-western bias and hatred dumped in our laps... Quote -Magna Europa Est Patria Nostra-
benny Posted April 22, 2009 Report Posted April 22, 2009 Maybe we should give a couple of billions in rice rations to the Chinese for having been oppressed by the mongols then... How about some plows and tractors for the Ukraine? you do realize how baseless your argument is right? Your own argument (dogs eat dogs, no ONE WOLRD) is an outdated classical liberal axiom. Quote
Oleg Bach Posted April 22, 2009 Report Posted April 22, 2009 Your own argument (dogs eat dogs, no ONE WOLRD) is an outdated classical liberal axiom. Sorry Benny....now you have traveled to far back in time for me to comment. Quote
ToadBrother Posted April 22, 2009 Report Posted April 22, 2009 I see, white people were hopelessly inferior to you... and so foul play MUST have been the factor right? Its not like Europeans were ever a particularly affluent people, or a people of discoverers, conquerors and inventors. Just melanin deficient cave beasts who got lucky century after century in dominating the world outright... More of the same anti-western bias and hatred dumped in our laps... The reality is that Europe got lucky. If the Chinese rulers hadn't been such navel-gazers, or the Mongols hadn't completely trashed Islamic civilization before fading out themselves, it might have been a rather different story. Quote
lictor616 Posted April 22, 2009 Report Posted April 22, 2009 The reality is that Europe got lucky. If the Chinese rulers hadn't been such navel-gazers, or the Mongols hadn't completely trashed Islamic civilization before fading out themselves, it might have been a rather different story. ah yes if... if ... if ... if And if the US would have joined forces with Nazi Germany to establish a WHITE WORLD... that too would have had very important consequences... And if Sub Saharan blacks would have produced the first nuclear bomb in the 8th century... we'd all be speaking swahili today... and if Japan had developed the combustion engine 100 years before Europeans.... maybe we'd be all exterminated by now... but they did'nt... they simply did'nt what a stupid tautological argument. Quote -Magna Europa Est Patria Nostra-
Oleg Bach Posted April 22, 2009 Report Posted April 22, 2009 ah yes if... if ... if ... if And if the US would have joined forces with Nazi Germany to establish a WHITE WORLD... that too would have had very important consequences... And if Sub Saharan blacks would have produced the first nuclear bomb in the 8th century... we'd all be speaking swahili today... and if Japan had developed the combustion engine 100 years before Europeans.... maybe we'd be all exterminated by now... but they did'nt... they simply did'nt what a stupid tautological argument. "Tautoligical" - that's a big word - what does it mean? Quote
M.Dancer Posted April 22, 2009 Report Posted April 22, 2009 Europe benefited from a number of coincidences..the fall of constantinople, the plague...etc etc etc..lucky is quite correct. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
ToadBrother Posted April 22, 2009 Report Posted April 22, 2009 ah yes if... if ... if ... if And if the US would have joined forces with Nazi Germany to establish a WHITE WORLD... that too would have had very important consequences... And if Sub Saharan blacks would have produced the first nuclear bomb in the 8th century... we'd all be speaking swahili today... and if Japan had developed the combustion engine 100 years before Europeans.... maybe we'd be all exterminated by now... but they did'nt... they simply did'nt what a stupid tautological argument. What it means is the Europeans got lucky, that's all it means. This idea that the Europeans were somehow superior is ludicrous. In the Middle Ages, Europe was considerably behind China and some of the Muslim states (in particular Moorish Spain). Quote
ToadBrother Posted April 22, 2009 Report Posted April 22, 2009 Europe benefited from a number of coincidences..the fall of constantinople, the plague...etc etc etc..lucky is quite correct. I'm not a huge fan of Jared Diamond, as I think he tends to oversimplify some things and exaggerates other things, but it's very clear here that there were a peculiar set of circumstances from the 14th to 18th centuries which saw Europe pull ahead. I think probably one of the key series of events in post-Classical world history were the various invasions from the Asian Steppe. The Huns fatally weakened Rome, the Mongols conquered the larger part of Eurasia (and did considerable damage to Islamic civilization), and finally the Turks, who ultimately bested the Byzantines. Europe had important natural defenses against this sort of invasion, and the routes to invade from Asia were somewhat limited as compared to Russia and Asia Minor. The Muslims couldn't get past the Pyrenees, the Mongols ran out of steam after conquering Russia, and the Turks ultimately failed to push past the Balkans. Quote
lictor616 Posted April 23, 2009 Report Posted April 23, 2009 What it means is the Europeans got lucky, that's all it means. This idea that the Europeans were somehow superior is ludicrous. In the Middle Ages, Europe was considerably behind China and some of the Muslim states (in particular Moorish Spain). Luck? I suppose if you consider technological advancements, warcraft, statecraft and philosophy (almost unique to europe) to also come into your perception of luck... then... no no... this is more simple defamation ... a mind crazed with hatred of Europe and its civilization... Was China lucky when it was able to maintain its Dynasties for centuries after the mongols had officially disappeared and no other power could compete with them? Was Japan lucky to be an insular country and very easy to defend? Was Egypt lucky- when it was about the ONLY civilization worthy of the name in its day- with nearly no competition... Constantinople and Byzantine were pretty much "european" at one time.. being roman and all ... Where the moors lucky to have invaded nearly uninhabited portions of southern spain? Listen, we all know you're just venting out hatred... fess up... you don't like Europe or its civilization... its not like you're fooling anyone! Quote -Magna Europa Est Patria Nostra-
M.Dancer Posted April 23, 2009 Report Posted April 23, 2009 Luck? I suppose if you consider technological advancements, warcraft, statecraft and philosophy (almost unique to europe) to also come into your perception of luck... quite....the fall of constantinople forced the intellectuals to Italy abd they gave birth to the renaissence. Nothing happens in a vacuum..there is nothing special in our genes that makes us anymore priviledged than the mongol, the brahman, the zulu....we are lucky, EOS Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
benny Posted April 23, 2009 Report Posted April 23, 2009 ah yes if... if ... if ... if And if the US would have joined forces with Nazi Germany to establish a WHITE WORLD... that too would have had very important consequences... And if Sub Saharan blacks would have produced the first nuclear bomb in the 8th century... we'd all be speaking swahili today... and if Japan had developed the combustion engine 100 years before Europeans.... maybe we'd be all exterminated by now... but they did'nt... they simply did'nt what a stupid tautological argument. Counter-factuality (as if…) is the very basis of moral reasoning. Quote
CANADIEN Posted April 23, 2009 Report Posted April 23, 2009 Counter-factuality (as if…) is the very basis of moral reasoning. Indeed. As for the use of the word luck, I find it a bit stong. I'd rather think it's the right factors combining at the right moment. Surely though, it has nothing to do a society or culture just being superior or inferior by nature. Quote
jbg Posted April 23, 2009 Author Report Posted April 23, 2009 What it means is the Europeans got lucky, that's all it means. This idea that the Europeans were somehow superior is ludicrous. In the Middle Ages, Europe was considerably behind China and some of the Muslim states (in particular Moorish Spain). Europe managed to fritter away all of its gains. They were in practically constant warfare all the way from the fall of the Roman Empire through 1945, the theory being that control over Europe equalled control over the world. What the Europeans didn't notice was that across the pond a very powerful country developed almost overnight from a bunch of disease-ridden shacks at Jamestown, Virginia and Plymouth, Massachusetts. That country wound up ruling the world, uncouth and uncultured as Americans are. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
benny Posted April 23, 2009 Report Posted April 23, 2009 Indeed.As for the use of the word luck, I find it a bit stong. I'd rather think it's the right factors combining at the right moment. Surely though, it has nothing to do a society or culture just being superior or inferior by nature. A morally superior person will ask her/himself: what if I was born with another person genetic makeup and in a different time and place? Quote
M.Dancer Posted April 23, 2009 Report Posted April 23, 2009 A morally superior person will ask her/himself: what if I was born with another person genetic makeup and in a different time and place? You aren't, by any chance, related to Oleg? Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
benny Posted April 23, 2009 Report Posted April 23, 2009 You aren't, by any chance, related to Oleg? Bach posts are too baroque compositions. Quote
ToadBrother Posted April 23, 2009 Report Posted April 23, 2009 Luck? I suppose if you consider technological advancements, warcraft, statecraft and philosophy (almost unique to europe) to also come into your perception of luck... then... no no... this is more simple defamation ... a mind crazed with hatred of Europe and its civilization... Philosophy was hardly unique to Europe. Buddhism and Confucianism were every bit as influential as European philosophy. Was China lucky when it was able to maintain its Dynasties for centuries after the mongols had officially disappeared and no other power could compete with them? I wouldn't call what happened to China beginning in the 18th century "lucky". Was Japan lucky to be an insular country and very easy to defend? To that extent, yes. It was also lucky in the respect that it had time to see what was happening in China, India and Southeast Asia. Was Egypt lucky- when it was about the ONLY civilization worthy of the name in its day- with nearly no competition... Which day was that? The Sumerians and their cultural descendants; the Akkadians, certainly produced a highly sophisticated, literate society. Farther east, there was the Indus Valley Civilization, and China, while not a politically-united civilization, was pretty damned advanced to. In both the case of the Egyptians and the Chinese, there's some debate as to when precisely they became literate. But you'll notice some key similarities here between all these earliest civilizations. They all developed around major rivers and fertile flood plains. People who lived, say, in Siberia or Terra Del Fuego simply would not have had the environmental factors to make large-scale, complex urban civilizations possible. Where the environment did favor it in the New World, however, we see at least semi-urbanized culture springing up. Constantinople and Byzantine were pretty much "european" at one time.. being roman and all ... Byzantium was a lot of things, but I'd hardly call it "European". It's form of Caesaro-Papism was quite alien in many respects as to how much of Europe evolved during the same period. The Byzantines regarded the Europeans as a rather barbaric lot (and not without reason). Where the moors lucky to have invaded nearly uninhabited portions of southern spain? Lucky? They're expansion got stopped by Charles Martel. However, they did manage to bring with them Medieval Islamic civilization, which, ironically, had more exposure to Classical philosophy, science, mathematics and medicine than the Europeans. Listen, we all know you're just venting out hatred... fess up... you don't like Europe or its civilization... its not like you're fooling anyone! Actually, I don't have a particular problem with Europe. I'm a decided Anglophile, to be honest, love the Queen, think Churchill was the greatest figure of the 20th century, think the active pursuit by the Soviets and Americans to end colonialism is a disaster that has lead directly to some of the greatest tragedies of the last sixty-odd years (sub-Saharan Africa and the never-ending conflicts of the Indian Subcontinent). That's not to say I think colonialism was good, but I'm a firm believe that if you break it, you must fix it, and Britain's pulling out of India (and seemingly intentionally breaking it in the process), and the way Africa was decolonized have lead to enormous human suffering. It could have been done much slower, with more long-term goals than "hand it off to the first local who managed to get an Oxford degree". Europe had a profound period of intellectual and technological expansion beginning in particular in the 16th century, but coming to full fruition in the 18th. But as I continually have pointed out, that expansion owes a great deal to prior circumstances, geography and, yes, luck. It could, largely, wage even its most destructive wars, with much less danger than, say, the Chinese could, seeing as the European "peninsula" had natural barriers that made invasions much more difficult to mount and sustain (the Huns probably were the most successful, but didn't exactly last a long time). Everywhere else had to constantly worry about peoples from the massive Asian Steppe, and the Mongol invasions into Islamic areas most certainly marked the decline of that civilization (much as the Hun invasion a thousand years earlier had marked the decline in Rome). Quote
benny Posted April 23, 2009 Report Posted April 23, 2009 Europe had a profound period of intellectual and technological expansion beginning in particular in the 16th century, but coming to full fruition in the 18th. But as I continually have pointed out, that expansion owes a great deal to prior circumstances, geography and, yes, luck. It could, largely, wage even its most destructive wars, with much less danger than, say, the Chinese could, seeing as the European "peninsula" had natural barriers that made invasions much more difficult to mount and sustain (the Huns probably were the most successful, but didn't exactly last a long time). Everywhere else had to constantly worry about peoples from the massive Asian Steppe, and the Mongol invasions into Islamic areas most certainly marked the decline of that civilization (much as the Hun invasion a thousand years earlier had marked the decline in Rome). To me, the western side of the Eurasian continent is not so much a "peninsula" but a dead-end: living in a dead-end takes its toll on personalities and cultures. Populations become overcrowded, aggressive and ready to risk their lives to find larger pastures. Quote
M.Dancer Posted April 23, 2009 Report Posted April 23, 2009 Quite right about Egypt. Their civiliazation was fragile and pressed on 3 sides. They were invaded and conquered numerous times.... Contemporary to the beginning of Egyptian civilization (circa 3000BC) you will find the indus valley civilization, the founding of Troy, the minoan civilization, the beginning of the greek bronze age abnd the first city in the Americas..... Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
ToadBrother Posted April 23, 2009 Report Posted April 23, 2009 (edited) To me, the western side of the Eurasian continent is not so much a "peninsula" but a dead-end: living in a dead-end takes its toll on personalities and cultures. Populations become overcrowded, aggressive and ready to risk their lives to find larger pastures. The key here is geography. The Alps, the Carpathians, the Urals, the Pyrenees, and if nothing else, the Russian Winter, represent serious geographical obstacles for invaders. The Moors managed to get into Spain, but couldn't get past the Pyrenees. The Turks made bids for Eastern Europe, but mountain geography made it too difficult. This partial immunity from external invasion explains to a great degree why Europe, once it got started, pulled ahead (but it took a few thousand years for it to pull ahead, before the Romans, it was hardly a bastion of civilization). It's also possible that there may have been climactic issues at play. The Medieval Warm Period may very well have encouraged a population boom which made Europe much more capable of surviving the Black Death and other plagues in the 13th and 14th centuries which decimated other regions of Eurasia. The Black Death utterly and permanently changed the economic balance of Europe, mortally wounding the feudal system (which in various forms, still persisted in many other regions of Eurasia and North Africa much later). Add into that the rather lucky timing of another group coming off the Asian Steppe; the Turks, destroying Byzantium, and seeing a sudden in-rush into Italy of what remained of Byzantine's artists and learned men, and you have a recipe for major advancement. Edited April 23, 2009 by ToadBrother Quote
benny Posted April 23, 2009 Report Posted April 23, 2009 Quite right about Egypt. Their civiliazation was fragile and pressed on 3 sides. They were invaded and conquered numerous times.... The cult dedicated to cats in Egypt is an indication that this civilization was mostly pressed by the celestial eternity. Quote
ToadBrother Posted April 23, 2009 Report Posted April 23, 2009 Quite right about Egypt. Their civiliazation was fragile and pressed on 3 sides. They were invaded and conquered numerous times....Contemporary to the beginning of Egyptian civilization (circa 3000BC) you will find the indus valley civilization, the founding of Troy, the minoan civilization, the beginning of the greek bronze age abnd the first city in the Americas..... There were also the Mesopotamian (certainly the most influential civilization for Westerners), the Edomites, and China had been an agrarian society for some time to. In fact, just how far back Chinese civilization stretches is open to debate, with some evidence suggesting at least proto-literacy as far back as 8000 BCE. Quote
benny Posted April 23, 2009 Report Posted April 23, 2009 This partial immunity from external invasion explains to a great degree why Europe, once it got started, pulled ahead (but it took a few thousand years for it to pull ahead, before the Romans, it was hardly a bastion of civilization). To me, the first question to be asked before judging if a society deserves to be called a civilization is: does that society makes of a non-existent natural necessity (hard work), the only virtue for those who owns no property (the workers)? Quote
lictor616 Posted April 23, 2009 Report Posted April 23, 2009 (edited) quite....the fall of constantinople forced the intellectuals to Italy abd they gave birth to the renaissence.Nothing happens in a vacuum..there is nothing special in our genes that makes us anymore priviledged than the mongol, the brahman, the zulu....we are lucky, EOS The fall of Constantinople happened thanks to a great many STOLEN European technology and "intelligence"... canons, ships, ascension ladders etc... ? so was the Ottoman Empire "lucky"? Nothing special in our genes except a sort of creativity that is conspicuously lacking in the Brahman, zulus, Hottentots, Ubangis, Australoids and the like... for some reason invention, technology and philosophy.... and the "faustian spirit" seems for all practical purposes to be faculties of the Europeans and Asians... none have been as "lucky" in acquiring creative will-to-power I suppose you believe that inventing the nuclear bomb happened thanks to a series of dice rolls and prayers too... and yes our genes are all PRECISELY EXACTLY to the one hundredth decimal EQUAL... and such features as black skin, kinky hair, broad noses, type and degree of intelligence, androgen hormonal types and degrees, acuity of vision, susceptibility to specific diseases... that's all caused by white racism and poverty I suppose right... right ... Edited April 23, 2009 by lictor616 Quote -Magna Europa Est Patria Nostra-
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.