Was it destined for the white race to rule the world?

Page 3 of 5 [ 65 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 77,256
Location: Queens, NYC

29 Jun 2021, 1:33 pm

The answer to the OP's question is a resounding NO.

It was, partially, through luck that the Mongols and the Saracens/Ottomans didn't overtake Christian Europe.



salad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Jul 2011
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,226

29 Jun 2021, 1:47 pm

kraftiekortie wrote:
The answer to the OP's question is a resounding NO.

It was, partially, through luck that the Mongols and the Saracens/Ottomans didn't overtake Christian Europe.


With the Mongols it was luck because after the Mongols annihilated a German army of Teutonic knights the Mongols could have swept further into Europe were it not for their Khan dying forcing the Mongols to head back home

As for the Ottomans and Saracens it wasnt luck but the superiority of the Christian fighters that prevented the Ottomans from penetrating further into Europe. 8,000 Hospitalier knights held off 100,000 Ottomans at Malta

Charles Martel's small army of Franks smashed the army of Abdurahman Al-Ghaffiqi at Tours and killed him as well

At Vienna in 1529 I admit there was some bad luck during the 1st siege since it was raining that day, but at the 2nd siege in 1683 Pasha Mustafa's army had the gates of Vienna breached, had an army of 100,000 minimum soldiers amassed, yet as soon as the 20,000 Winged Hussars under Polish king Jan Saboisky arrived the Ottomans were forced to flee and were even later on pushed out of most of Europe after such an embarrassing defeat

Let's not even forget that a small, poor, landlocked peasant country, Croatia, fought a 100 year war with the Ottomans and yet the Ottomans with all their superior numbers and armies lost in the end


_________________
"One often meets his destiny on the road he takes to avoid it."

Master Oogway


salad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Jul 2011
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,226

29 Jun 2021, 1:53 pm

funeralxempire wrote:
It was superior ships and guns that enabled those western powers to take over the world but there's nothing that made the development of those things inevitable in Western Europe.


Before the Europeans had that kind of technological superiority over their opponents they still had forms of proto-imperialism where they subjugated much more advanced and elite militarized armies and even empires. The Muslims were more militaristically advanced and superior to the Franks who squashed them at Tours. The Ottomans also had ships and guns and cannons yet they suffered resounding defeats at Malta, Lepanto, Vienna and even lost a 100 year war against little and poor Croatia

It's worth mentioning that gun powder reached the Muslm world before it ever did Europe yet the Muslims still barely reached Austria at their zenith

In the Crusades the Muslims were much more materially advanced than the Crusaders, were more numerous, had the advantage of terrain, and even had faster horses, yet a few hundred Crusader knights held their own over and over again against armies of thousands of soldiers such as at Atsuf and Jaffa.

Technological superiority alone doesnt explain the military victories of the West over the Muslims


_________________
"One often meets his destiny on the road he takes to avoid it."

Master Oogway


kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 77,256
Location: Queens, NYC

29 Jun 2021, 1:58 pm

I would say "zeal" had a lot to do with it.

The Ottoman (and Saracen) armies were not inspired to fight-----because they were oppressed by their sultans and by their economic systems.

Feudalism sucked.....but the common Muslim person probably had it worse than the common Christian person, in general.



funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 36
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 13,503
Location: I'm right here

29 Jun 2021, 2:02 pm

salad wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
It was superior ships and guns that enabled those western powers to take over the world but there's nothing that made the development of those things inevitable in Western Europe.


Before the Europeans had that kind of technological superiority over their opponents they still had forms of proto-imperialism where they subjugated much more advanced and elite militarized armies and even empires. The Muslims were more militaristically advanced and superior to the Franks who squashed them at Tours. The Ottomans also had ships and guns and cannons yet they suffered resounding defeats at Malta, Lepanto, Vienna and even lost a 100 year war against little and poor Croatia

It's worth mentioning that gun powder reached the Muslm world before it ever did Europe yet the Muslims still barely reached Austria at their zenith

In the Crusades the Muslims were much more materially advanced than the Crusaders, were more numerous, had the advantage of terrain, and even had faster horses, yet a few hundred Crusader knights held their own over and over again against armies of thousands of soldiers such as at Atsuf and Jaffa.

Technological superiority alone doesnt explain the military victories of the West over the Muslims


Tactical superiority explains many of those single battles, further the difference in technological superiority might be overstated, especially if most of the superiority is in fields that aren't directly relevant to military affairs of the time.


_________________
the problem with capitalism is that eventually you run out of other people's resources and cheap labour to exploit
戦争ではなく戦争と戦う


funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 36
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 13,503
Location: I'm right here

29 Jun 2021, 2:05 pm

kraftiekortie wrote:
I would say "zeal" had a lot to do with it.

The Ottoman (and Saracen) armies were not inspired to fight-----because they were oppressed by their sultans and by their economic systems.

Feudalism sucked.....but the common Muslim person probably had it worse than the common Christian person, in general.


You're likely right about zeal but likely mistaken about where it comes from. The Christians who hadn't lived under Muslim rule almost always viewed Muslims as being aligned with Satan. Eastern Christians who had tended to have more mixed views, especially when the choice was to deal with Latin Christians who would try to impose their faith on them or Muslims who would make them second class citizens but allow them more religious liberty.


_________________
the problem with capitalism is that eventually you run out of other people's resources and cheap labour to exploit
戦争ではなく戦争と戦う


Mona Pereth
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Sep 2018
Age: 63
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,255
Location: New York City (Queens)

29 Jun 2021, 2:29 pm

Fnord wrote:
I, for one, see the inevitability of the "white" race evolving itself out of existence.  "White" people seem to have smaller families (if they have any children at all) than people of other races.  Maybe this is because "white" women may have easier access to contraceptives and abortion services than women of other races.

I look around my own neighborhood (where I have lived for over a quarter-century), and see this trend playing out -- small "white" families and large "non-white"/"mixed-race" families.

As long as the U.S.A. remains a relatively prosperous country, subsequent generations of today's non-white immigrant families will likely have fewer kids, just like most white families.


_________________
- Autistic in NYC - Resources and new ideas for the autistic adult community in the New York City metro area.
- Autistic peer-led groups (via text-based chat, currently) led or facilitated by members of the Autistic Peer Leadership Group.
- My Twitter (new as of 2021)


salad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Jul 2011
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,226

29 Jun 2021, 2:34 pm

kraftiekortie wrote:
I would say "zeal" had a lot to do with it.

The Ottoman (and Saracen) armies were not inspired to fight-----because they were oppressed by their sultans and by their economic systems.

Feudalism sucked.....but the common Muslim person probably had it worse than the common Christian person, in general.


The Muslims had tons of zeal too and many more reasons to fight

Remember that war booty was a major source of economic prosperity for the expanding Muslim empires

Religiously Muslims who fought and especially who died in Jihad were guaranteed the highest reward in paradise and the greatest honor on earth

The Muslims arguably had even more zeal fighting than the Christians, because unlike Christianity which has 0 literature on fighting Islam has a massive and well documented literature on the virtues of Jihad and the rewards for it, even allowing enrichment in wealth and slaves through military expeditions


_________________
"One often meets his destiny on the road he takes to avoid it."

Master Oogway


salad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Jul 2011
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,226

29 Jun 2021, 2:36 pm

funeralxempire wrote:
salad wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
It was superior ships and guns that enabled those western powers to take over the world but there's nothing that made the development of those things inevitable in Western Europe.


Before the Europeans had that kind of technological superiority over their opponents they still had forms of proto-imperialism where they subjugated much more advanced and elite militarized armies and even empires. The Muslims were more militaristically advanced and superior to the Franks who squashed them at Tours. The Ottomans also had ships and guns and cannons yet they suffered resounding defeats at Malta, Lepanto, Vienna and even lost a 100 year war against little and poor Croatia

It's worth mentioning that gun powder reached the Muslm world before it ever did Europe yet the Muslims still barely reached Austria at their zenith

In the Crusades the Muslims were much more materially advanced than the Crusaders, were more numerous, had the advantage of terrain, and even had faster horses, yet a few hundred Crusader knights held their own over and over again against armies of thousands of soldiers such as at Atsuf and Jaffa.

Technological superiority alone doesnt explain the military victories of the West over the Muslims


Tactical superiority explains many of those single battles, further the difference in technological superiority might be overstated, especially if most of the superiority is in fields that aren't directly relevant to military affairs of the time.


Tactical superiority alone cant explain 700 knights overpowering 20,000 Muslim knights. Especially not when the 700 knights made contact with the 20,000 Muslim knights and the fighting came down to melee close quarter combat.


_________________
"One often meets his destiny on the road he takes to avoid it."

Master Oogway


thinkinginpictures
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 May 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,109

29 Jun 2021, 2:43 pm

I'm a white male, but I feel uncomfortable about this thread.

Last time someone made that claim, white males supposing to be "superior" to "other races" were forcibly conscripted, going to war and die for a stupid belief...

Also, they were required to give up their own beliefs and political opinions, for the sake of "Nationalism" and other ways of coercion.

I will tell you something:

I'm not fighting that war...
Nor am I going to give up my beliefs/opinions and I refuse to be proud of my country if it ever attempts those things (it actually does, and that's why I'm not proud of my own country).

Personal liberty before economic freedom, the right to say NO to work - including military service or any other alternative service, are my values, my beliefs and my opinion.

Any culture not representing the abovementioned values should never be allowed to rule the world.



salad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Jul 2011
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,226

29 Jun 2021, 3:22 pm

thinkinginpictures wrote:
I'm a white male, but I feel uncomfortable about this thread.

Last time someone made that claim, white males supposing to be "superior" to "other races" were forcibly conscripted, going to war and die for a stupid belief...

Also, they were required to give up their own beliefs and political opinions, for the sake of "Nationalism" and other ways of coercion.

I will tell you something:

I'm not fighting that war...
Nor am I going to give up my beliefs/opinions and I refuse to be proud of my country if it ever attempts those things (it actually does, and that's why I'm not proud of my own country).

Personal liberty before economic freedom, the right to say NO to work - including military service or any other alternative service, are my values, my beliefs and my opinion.

Any culture not representing the abovementioned values should never be allowed to rule the world.


I never once said or implied the white race is the "superior race". "superior race" is inherently subjective and backwards thinking. But physically it is a known fact that some groups have divergent physical attributes that may lend them advantages, such as Vietnamese fighters being shorter making them excellent tunnel guerrilla fighters, or how white fighters owing to their larger size and bone density were better at close quarter combat


_________________
"One often meets his destiny on the road he takes to avoid it."

Master Oogway


Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 50,737
Location: Stendec

29 Jun 2021, 3:53 pm

Mona Pereth wrote:
Fnord wrote:
I, for one, see the inevitability of the "white" race evolving itself out of existence.  "White" people seem to have smaller families (if they have any children at all) than people of other races.  Maybe this is because "white" women may have easier access to contraceptives and abortion services than women of other races.  I look around my own neighborhood (where I have lived for over a quarter-century), and see this trend playing out -- small "white" families and large "non-white"/"mixed-race" families.
As long as the U.S.A. remains a relatively prosperous country, subsequent generations of today's non-white immigrant families will likely have fewer kids, just like most white families.
Perhaps ... time will tell.  In any case, while I understand the situation, I do not perceive it as a problem.


_________________
 Link to Official List of Trump's Atrocities 

45OFFICE = TRE45ON
Lock Him Up!


Lost_dragon
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2017
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,745
Location: England

29 Jun 2021, 3:58 pm

Fnord wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Fnord wrote:
browneyedgirlslowingdown wrote:
Whiteness is a social construct, it's not real.
Since when is the color of my skin not real?  Race is not a social construct. "Race" is to "People" as "Breed" is to "Cat". "Race" is genetic.
Whiteness isn't describing being pale, it's describing the social construct of being viewed as a white person.
And the difference is ... ?


Sometimes people debate whether a particular ethnic group is white or not. For example, Italians. Generally, in the UK we consider Italians to be white, but I have heard a couple of Americans refer to Italians as POC. I've seen debates online regarding this subject.

There is some variation within the same skin group. For example, both of my parents are white but they have different complexions. When I'm with my mum, I have been asked by strangers if I am sick because they see how pale I am in comparison. She has a light olive complexion with a warm undertone, whereas my dad is paler and has a colder undertone to his skin. When people see my dad, it clicks and they realise that I'm just pale. However, there are slight differences, for example I know that when my dad blushes it looks a definite red, but when I do so it is more of a light pink. My complexion is a mixture of my parents, but it is closer to my dad's. I share my mum's undertone, but I have my dad's main skin tone. However, if you looked at my parents you would read them both as white. There's some variation, but they still belong to the same group.

Whiteness encompasses a lot of ground and it is not always easily defined. Historically, you had arguments over whether people of Irish descent are white.

Further, when you add people who are mixed race into the equation, things become more complex. It becomes a question of how they are perceived, you may even get situations where one sibling has lighter skin than the other and appears more white-passing. This even happens with fraternal twins. Here are some examples of this happening:

Image

Image

When this happens, it does bring up some interesting questions. Do they select different options when filling out forms? How does this inform their identities? I have a cousin who is mixed race, but he appears significantly more Asian than White. This influences how he is treated, and unfortunately I am aware of this and instinctively want to fight anyone who disrespects him but don't want to appear as a white saviour type. You have cases of Black Albinism where an individual may have facial features typical of a black person and a come from a black family but have pale skin and hair. Are they still considered black? Typically yes.

Race is a cluster of traits but it's not always clear cut. White supremacists are an odd bunch to me. No race is superior, particular traits simply developed as a result of the environment. I always find it incredibly disheartening when people bleach their skin to try to appear paler. Or try to change their eye shape or photoshop themselves to fit into Eurocentric beauty standards. Beauty comes in many forms.


_________________
Possibly B.A.P.
22.


Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 50,737
Location: Stendec

29 Jun 2021, 4:00 pm

funeralxempire wrote:
Fnord wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Fnord wrote:
browneyedgirlslowingdown wrote:
Whiteness is a social construct, it's not real.
Since when is the color of my skin not real?  Race is not a social construct. "Race" is to "People" as "Breed" is to "Cat". "Race" is genetic.
Whiteness isn't describing being pale, it's describing the social construct of being viewed as a white person.
And the difference is ... ?
... the reason recent immigrants from Lebanon aren't typically viewed as white but Casey Kasem was.
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." -- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. (1929-1968)

The differences in the human "races" are purely cosmetic.  As a species, our differences do not matter.


_________________
 Link to Official List of Trump's Atrocities 

45OFFICE = TRE45ON
Lock Him Up!


envirozentinel
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 16 Sep 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,455
Location: Keshron, Super-Zakhyria

29 Jun 2021, 4:13 pm

It seems so childish to treat people differently because of their skin colour. Growing up where I did, one has to be deprogrammed from what was drummed into your childhood.


_________________
Why is a trailer behind a car but ahead of a movie?


my blog:
https://sentinel63.wordpress.com/


funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 36
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 13,503
Location: I'm right here

29 Jun 2021, 4:16 pm

Fnord wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Fnord wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Fnord wrote:
browneyedgirlslowingdown wrote:
Whiteness is a social construct, it's not real.
Since when is the color of my skin not real?  Race is not a social construct. "Race" is to "People" as "Breed" is to "Cat". "Race" is genetic.
Whiteness isn't describing being pale, it's describing the social construct of being viewed as a white person.
And the difference is ... ?
... the reason recent immigrants from Lebanon aren't typically viewed as white but Casey Kasem was.
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." -- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. (1929-1968)

The differences in the human "races" are purely cosmetic.  As a species, our differences do not matter.


I agree that the differences are cosmetic, that doesn't mean that a certain appearance hasn't been beneficial in many societies. Those benefits exist due to social constructs, but that doesn't mean it's unreasonable to describe that social construct.


_________________
the problem with capitalism is that eventually you run out of other people's resources and cheap labour to exploit
戦争ではなく戦争と戦う