Why are Whites the dominant race and not Asians?

[Baasha]

In the documentary 'Guns Germs and Steel', the author explains the evolution of White dominance.

summary:
In the beginning, humans were hunter/gatherers.
Then with wheat and domesticated animals, they became farmers.
Beast of burden (horse/oxen) increased productivity of farming (ielow). with more food available, communities grew which allowed people to specialize in skills.
One of these skills was understanding how to work w/fire which lead to smelting of steel.

But only 1 area in the world had these domesticated beasts of burden. It was the ancient middle east. (It's very hard to domesticate elephants/zebra). Unfortunately they over exploited the environment (water/trees).
Communites uprooted and moved to more furtile ground, which was located to the west (Europe) and East (India/china).

THe documentary then concentrated on European supremacy. It explained that since neither the people of the Americas (North and South) nor Sub-Saharan Africa had these beasts of burden. they didnt have many specialists. most of the community was involved in time consuming farming.

the horse/plow freed up many hours for Europeans to experiement with trial and error on various things. One of which lead to steel and eventually guns. because of these tech advantages they conquered most of the world.


But if the settlers of ancient middle east also headed towards India/China with these beasts of burden, then why didnt India/China become a rival for European supremacy?

India and China were the biggest forces of the world until the 1800s. They had the lion's share of the world economy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_by_past_GDP_(PPP)) when Europe and other parts were living in squalor and waging constant war with each other.

The only reason Asian power declined in the 19th and 20th centuries is because of European colonialism, invasions, and outright theft.

Europe, and America, enriched themselves by stealing from others. This is especially true of England. And, as the article states, with brute force (violence), the Europeans invaded and colonized far off lands, as did the "settlers" (invaders) who destroyed the Native Americans here in the US.

This is also why European/Western dominance is on a decline now that India and China are rising again. The question is, how will the West try to maintain its status quo in the future? By waging more wars under false pretenses? Or by attracting the top minds from Asia to settle in their lands (as America has done for decades)? Regardless, India and China will once again dominate the world stage.

In the end, dominance in and of itself is a loaded word; implying subjugation of others. This mentality is highly backward and uncivilized and the only requirement for it is brute force (army) and shrewd statecraft (politics). If we, as humans, are to really progress, our goals must be aligned by and large; that is, recognizing that everyone needs some basic necessities and a measure of peace and safety in their lives. If the goal is to dominate others, there will never be peace and instead deeper and larger fissures in cultures, civilizations, and nations will inevitably give rise to more warfare, rancor, and unhappiness for all.

Jungle law is meant for the jungle. If one wants to think of themselves as "civilized", one must understand and appreciate the varied perspectives and differences in humanity. This worldview is inherently incompatible with Abrahamic religions, which all state that the entire world was "made" for them and their use.

On a much more serious note, this intent to dominate and "conquer" others, either physically, economically, or even socially stems from the religious mindset of the Abrahamic traditions that are exclusive. As long as people continue to think only "they" are "chosen/saved" and condemn others to even a mental state of suffering, the need to dominate others culturally, mentally, emotionally, and even physically will not be diminished.

 

[JS80]

Lack of technology is euphemism for lack of creativity. Asians in general are fail on lack of ideas, innovation and inventions.

 

[crashtestdummy]

The argument could be made that whites aren't overwhelmingly dominant. Asia and Europe developed relatively in parallel when compared with other continents. The only real difference is that the Europeans colonized America first, which occurred in part because a misinformed Italian was looking for easier access to Chinese riches.

 

[Zeze]

Every race their time. Asia raped everyone with Ghengis Khan.

 

[JimmiG]

Europe was a pretty crappy place to live in until the mid 20th century (even before and between the wars). Parts of the USA weren't much better off (midwest during the great depression etc.). The economy in Europe (with improved standards of living) didn't really take off until the 60's.

India and China are on the rise again and may well surpass the "west" in a matter of decades. They are at a similar stage that Europe was at 50 years ago. Meanwhile, the economy in the EU and USA is going to hell. Find some pictures of New Delhi or Mumbai and compare them to Detroit. They have slums, but the nicer areas of those cities are definitely nicer than Detroit.

 

[dennilfloss]

Lack of technology is euphemism for lack of creativity. Asians in general are fail on lack of ideas, innovation and inventions.

I read recently that one of the major tenets of confucianism (or was it buddhism?) is that if you don't poke it (that is rock the boat, make waves), the universe will reward you. This is a major inhibition against innovation. Let the things stay as they are, stable and constant, "may you live in interesting times' being a curse in confucianism.

A lack of innovative thinking will not help you conquer the world until you can become a master of copying the innovations of others. It was much more difficult to acquire and copying olden times and the celestial kingdom did not help by being closed on itself.

 

[AeroEngy]

I read an interesting article a long time ago that attributed the lack of "domination" at least technically speaking (mostly leading up to and during the industrial revolution) to glass and optics. Basically from what I remember there was a lack of glass and advancement in optics in Asia. So they were delayed in utilizing things like the microscope, which delayed certain types of metallurgy and medical advancements. If I can find I link I will post it later.

 

[Dominato3r]

Guns Germs and Steel is an amazing film/book :thumbsup:

 

[Imdmn04]

Wat?

China pretty much has the biggest GDP for 17 centuries out of the last 20, and it is about to re-take that spot in about 20 years.

 

[yhelothar]

Age of Enlightment


Confucianism let Asia be dominant for over a millennium. It provided structure, order, and hard working people. However it's definitely no match to the capability of humanity that has gone through the Age of Enlightment. That just completely made any other culture seem like primitive uncivilized apes.

 

[JulesMaximus]

China invented the intarwebs and Al Gore.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

The Chinese were close, in 1421 China had huge ships and fleets of such ships that would have embarrassed European counterparts of the time. There's even a possibility they made it to the Americas decades before the Europeans.

The problem, as some have already mentioned, is that the Chinese were pretty xenophobic (just have to look at the Great Wall of China) and it didn't take long before a new regime change burned their ships and closed their ports and would destroy any such records and logs.

 

[dighn]

Wat?

China pretty much has the biggest GDP for 17 centuries out of the last 20, and it is about to re-take that spot in about 20 years.

except the centuries in which it lost the race were some of the most important ones, and it is now on the rise only by adopting western ideas and values. there's no question to me that for one reason or other, europeans ended up with an obviously more progressive culture. though that advantage has begun to wane now that the world is a much more culturally homogeneous place.

 

[JS80]

Wat?

China pretty much has the biggest GDP for 17 centuries out of the last 20, and it is about to re-take that spot in about 20 years.

lol no

 

[sunzt]

lol no

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China#Economy

China was for a large part of the last two millennia the world's largest economy.[50] However, in the later part of the Qing dynasty, China's economic development began to slow and Europe's rapid development during and after the Industrial Revolution enabled it to surpass China.

Many analysts assert that modern China is one of the leading examples of state capitalism in the 21st century

boom.

 

[thecrecarc]

My personal theory on this matter lies with the constant and utterly brutal infighting Europe was experiencing. Asia and China had thier internal factions, battles, and periods of war (3 kingdoms period for example), but it was nowhere near the type of constant aggressiveness Europe was fostering. This, during the early eras, lead to weakness. One cant even compare the powerful mongol empire or the glorious chinese dynasties to the tiny, weak, crap europe had at the same time. By the 1600s however, this constant fighting had lead to great advances in technology and weaponry. That lead to the age of colonialism and European dominance (and europe was still hating each other during this period as well.)

 

[sunzt]

Also..

http://info.worldbank.org/etools/docs/library/137742/ChinaKE.pdf

Over the past 2,000 years China’s share of global GDP hovered
around 25% until the late 1700s. In 1820 China accounted for 33% of global GDP.
Then from 1820 to 1950 it suffered great internal strife and foreign exploitation.
Its GDP collapsed—as it increased elsewhere. As a result China’s share of global
GDP fell to just 5% in 1950

see figure 1.1 in that link to see how much time in history western Europe/ the US has actually had more GDP in history than China ... not much.

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)

China has ~13% of world Gdp now and US has ~ 20% and EU has also ~20%.

 

[Lean L]

lol no

WTF was the point of this post? Not gonna back your shit up with anything? Way to get pwned.

 

[Farang]

A professor of mine in college wrote a book on this. He had a very solid theory about why Europeans became dominant.

For much of history, China was the more advanced civilization. But, like Europe, China went through periods of strong centralization (a strong central government ruling a large territory, order, peace) and decentralization (power struggles, war, split territories, etc.).

With the industrial revolution and globalization, countries started to become much more interdependent. It was during this time that China happened to be going through a period of decentralization, and Europe the opposite. Therefore Europe was much stronger on the world stage, and it is then something of a snowball effect where they exploit the weaker countries resources and become stronger, thereby being able to exploit more and become even stronger (and Asia weaker).

I don't have one offhand, but there are some interesting graphs displaying this effect in a timeline.

The analogy my professor liked to use was the power of a closed fist versus the power of your fingers. When the two met on the world stage, Europe had a fist.

 

[sunzt]

A professor of mine in college wrote a book on this. He had a very solid theory about why Europeans became dominant.

For much of history, China was the more advanced civilization. But, like Europe, China went through periods of strong centralization (a strong central government ruling a large territory, order, peace) and decentralization (power struggles, war, split territories, etc.).

With the industrial revolution and globalization, countries started to become much more interdependent. It was during this time that China happened to be going through a period of decentralization, and Europe the opposite. Therefore Europe was much stronger on the world stage, and it is then something of a snowball effect where they exploit the weaker countries resources and become stronger, thereby being able to exploit more and become even stronger (and Asia weaker).

I don't have one offhand, but there are some interesting graphs displaying this effect in a timeline.

The analogy my professor liked to use was the power of a closed fist versus the power of your fingers. When the two met on the world stage, Europe had a fist.

Europe wasn't very centralized.... I blame guns + opium.

 

[yhelothar]

Age of Enlightment

When the western world realized they didn't know jack shit and started to develop a foundation of what truth and knowledge is and how to acquire it instead of just believing whatever BS out there.
This led them to ROFLSTOMP all other cultures.

 

[William Gaatjes]

Totally different cultures. You have to look at the religions and the response to changes. It is not that easy. Asians are more relaxed while Europeans get nervous quickly. It is our culture.

You need to look at the picture since year 1 AD.

Fast forward towards around 900 AD and after...
During the Islamic golden age where Spain was conquered by Muslims, There was constant battle between the roman catholic empire/ Christian empire(a pact was more or less existing) and the Muslim empire. The Muslims where a lot smarter then the Roman Catholics, while the roman catholics only treasured their own values, the (pre byzantium) muslim empire was an enormous place of knowledge , tools , technology , food. If i remember correctly, Mecca was at that time a merchandise route. In a sense, the Muslims where a bit like the borg from star trek. They absorbed new technologies and incorporated it into their way of life. However, there where power struggles as well in the Muslim empire. And do not forget since the Muslims can not consume alcohol, opium trade from China became popular under Muslims. Opium consumption even more. Another crack into the Muslim empire.

Even though the Roman Catholic church tried to kill off as much Muslim knowledge as possible, a lot of it remained in Europe combined with the local knowledge the roman catholic tried to destroy as well.
Not very wise, gun powder and cannons came from the Muslims if i remember correct who had taken it from the Chinese and the Persians even i think , but i am not sure ...

But Europe took off since the Jewish/Christian values got a hold of people together with a separation of state and church in many countries. This allowed for rich individuals instead of being ripped of by the roman catholics to develop ways to become more rich while needing villagers/ peasants. This caused the industrial revolution. We have had several revolutions in France. It costed the lives of brilliant researchers/mathematicians. France, the Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, Germany and England played a very big role. The Italians just kept on going to the vatican, but they still played a key role as well. Scandinavia picked up very fast. There is something about North/West Europe. It is the climate. Not to hot and not to cold. Not to much predators. A stable climate. Fertile grounds. Ideal to take away that need for survival. When there is no need for survival, technologies can be developed.

As mentioned above, the Asians have a different culture. But in the last few centuries( 1800 i think), it was the British who took the opium trade from the Dutch by war. It was the British combined with Chinese lords who forced the Asians into poverty. Somebody made a joke on this forum why Chinese sound like they are on crack ? It would have been more accurate if he wrote opium. The amount of opium addicts in China at those times is just devastating. The way the Chinese government dealt with it even more.

There are many morals of the story why Europe happened as it did :

Separation of state and church.
Socialism.
Capitalism.
No drugs other then alcohol.
Education of people by use of trade schools.
Industrialization and socialism again.

 

[William Gaatjes]

I should mention that in WW1 Europe had it's fair share of opium/ morphine addicts as well. And for a while cocaine was popular before it got banned.

 

[shortylickens]

 

[nageov3t]

China is xenophobic and had no interest whatsoever in expansion beyond it's region. Why would should it be compelled to do what another culture expects?

Likewise India didn't have to assume the stance of dominance. Their concerns were less about the accumulation of stuff than the west, which is an ailment we still suffer from. We think we're better because we work ourselves into the grave to buy more junk from walmart. At least the Europeans take lunches and a great many have some form of siesta built into their day. We point our fingers and laugh at the lazy then live in a way that dumps stress hormones into our system which causes us to get fat, develop hypertension, high cholesterol and diabetes. So were dominant in stupidity. Great.

it's fascinating to think how different the world might be if China had pushed Eastern exploration into the Pacific, instead of being content to confine themselves to the West.