Post: #101

(04-26-2017 12:06 PM)Fisto Wrote:  

(04-26-2017 12:00 PM)Repo Wrote:  

(04-26-2017 11:51 AM)Fisto Wrote:  

(04-26-2017 11:37 AM)Repo Wrote:  

(04-26-2017 11:35 AM)Rocha Wrote:  As far as I can tell the statue was nowadays honoring: "Of those Americans on both sides who died in the battle of Liberty Place...A conflict of the past that should teach us lessons for the future"

That quote was added to cover up the quote about white superiority.

Interesting. So when white people take down a statue that is about white supremacy, do other races no longer remain inferior?

Is choosing to continue to commemorate a statue originally dedicated to white superiority necessary to remember the lives lost on both sides?

Are any statues necessary?

LOL

As I said before, this is about virtue signaling and shitting on white people.

It really doesn't change a single thing though does it?

It's complete bullshit and DOES NOT change a single thing; what's done is done.

However, it does succeed in pissing people off and bringing attention to problems that were never truly solved over 150 years ago.

Two wrongs, in this case, owning slaves and trampling on state's rights, don't make a right. But this stunt is nothing more than the continued erosion of American history. As Fisto above says: This is about virtue signaling. And sooner or later, the shitlibs pecking away will be met with resistance...and then things will get real interesting, real fast.

FWIW, my family didn't settle in the USA until the early 1900s; we never had a "dog in the fight".

Post: #102

(04-26-2017 12:06 PM)Fisto Wrote:  

(04-26-2017 12:00 PM)Repo Wrote:  

(04-26-2017 11:51 AM)Fisto Wrote:  

(04-26-2017 11:37 AM)Repo Wrote:  

(04-26-2017 11:35 AM)Rocha Wrote:  As far as I can tell the statue was nowadays honoring: "Of those Americans on both sides who died in the battle of Liberty Place...A conflict of the past that should teach us lessons for the future"

That quote was added to cover up the quote about white superiority.

Interesting. So when white people take down a statue that is about white supremacy, do other races no longer remain inferior?

Is choosing to continue to commemorate a statue originally dedicated to white superiority necessary to remember the lives lost on both sides?

Are any statues necessary?

LOL

As I said before, this is about virtue signaling and shitting on white people.

It really doesn't change a single thing though does it?

You didn't put up a statue celebrating white superiority, so not sure how this represents shitting on white people as a whole. More like shitting on these specific white people:

Post: #103

(04-26-2017 12:13 PM)Fisto Wrote:  Hey I agree, white people all over the world and ages building the best cities, the most wealth, colonizing and improving places wherever they have gone, inventing and endless list of things has nothing to do with reality.

Nothing.

Pure coincidence. A luck of the draw.

Everyone is equal and all that.

Honestly it's amazing to hear people that are not white, STILL complain about white privilege as well, when as you know it's not reality.

Especially when white people have taken great and self destructive measures to give power away.

Thank you for pointing it out.

edit - What if the Aztecs were white?

The success of the Europeans over the last 500-600 years was HEAVILY COINCIDENTAL. Extremely luck based due to combination of political factors and technological development.

I remember reading somewhere that as the Ottoman's expanded it cut off European trade routes to the East. In order to find trade routes that drove Western Europeans to explore the sea in order to find trade routes by sea.

This lead to the Spanish's discovery of America and began the period of European colonization of the America's. This period of colonization drove up the population and access to resources of European society, which increased the political dominance of the Europeans. This of course was all 100% luck based. If the Europeans weren't blocked off from trade to the East they may have not found the Americas much later and wouldn't have become nearly as successful as they became by the early 1900's.

----------------------------------

On top of this, a lot of the development of Europe did not happen in a vacuum. Abrahamic religions (including Christianity) were started in the Middle East. Certain aspects of Judaism were taken from Zoroastrianism, which was started in Iran. Christianity has a basis in old school Iranian religion.

Agriculture was started in Mesopotamia from my knowledge. Again start of agricultural based civilization was started in the Middle East. Canal systems probably came out of Egypt, so that is North Africa. Algebra was created in the Gulf States. Gun powder was created in China.

Significant amounts of technological and cultural development of Europeans was adopted from OTHER civilizations. If we never had exposure to other civilizations whose competition we had with them, we would have NEVER reached the levels of advanced civilization development we have now.

Huge portions of European success come a strong geographic location, exposure to other civilizations, and blind luck as far as Ottomans forcing Europeans to find new trade routes, which sparked a 500 year period of colonization.

Post: #104

(04-26-2017 12:36 PM)All or Nothing Wrote:  The success of the Europeans over the last 500-600 years was HEAVILY COINCIDENTAL. Extremely luck based due to combination of political factors and technological development.

Well the only argument that needs to be said against this is. - You have't really travelled much boy, have ya?

Post: #105

(04-26-2017 12:45 PM)Uruz Wrote:  Well the only argument that needs to be said against this is. - You have't really travelled much boy, have ya?

You can only come to this conclusion if you ignore the reasoning laid out in the rest of my post. I will lay out my reasoning again.

The fact that:
-The Ottoman's expansion led to the blocking of trade routes to the East forced the Europeans to find new trade routes
-That this happened at a time where technological development in Europe was advanced enough to shift into becoming a seafaring society
-That Columbus accidentally discovered the Americas rather than finding a new trade route to India and China
-That Columbus' discovery sparked European colonization of the America's before any other advanced society could begun such a migration (like China, Ottomans, Japanese, or Indians)
-That this increased the European's access to resources and territory, which drove up their political power

IS EXTREME LUCK. The discovery of and timing of the discovery of the America's, which evolved into a period of mass colonization is based almost entirely on PURELY COINCIDENTAL factors.

Please explain to me in a logical format that rebuts my points on how the period of European colonization (which ultimately evolved into European nations becoming global powers) was due to innate factors rather than purely coincidental ones.

Also, if the Europeans are so dominant, why is China and India becoming more powerful than the EU or the US?

Post: #106

(04-26-2017 12:36 PM)All or Nothing Wrote:  The success of the Europeans over the last 500-600 years was HEAVILY COINCIDENTAL. Extremely luck based due to combination of political factors and technological development.

I remember reading somewhere that as the Ottoman's expanded it cut off European trade routes to the East. In order to find trade routes that drove Western Europeans to explore the sea in order to find trade routes by sea.

This lead to the Spanish's discovery of America and began the period of European colonization of the America's. This period of colonization drove up the population and access to resources of European society, which increased the political dominance of the Europeans. This of course was all 100% luck based. If the Europeans weren't blocked off from trade to the East they may have not found the Americas much later and wouldn't have become nearly as successful as they became by the early 1900's.

----------------------------------

On top of this, a lot of the development of Europe did not happen in a vacuum. Abrahamic religions (including Christianity) were started in the Middle East. Certain aspects of Judaism were taken from Zoroastrianism, which was started in Iran. Christianity has a basis in old school Iranian religion.

Agriculture was started in Mesopotamia from my knowledge. Again start of agricultural based civilization was started in the Middle East. Canal systems probably came out of Egypt, so that is North Africa. Algebra was created in the Gulf States. Gun powder was created in China.

Significant amounts of technological and cultural development of Europeans was adopted from OTHER civilizations. If we never had exposure to other civilizations whose competition we had with them, we would have NEVER reached the levels of advanced civilization development we have now.

Huge portions of European success come a strong geographic location, exposure to other civilizations, and blind luck as far as Ottomans forcing Europeans to find new trade routes, which sparked a 500 year period of colonization.

Yup.

I guess everything Europeans/whites did was heavily coincidental such as launching a man to the moon.

Obviously, that was pure coincidence and good luck. Never mind, everything else that went into planning, design, execution, etc. - it was pure coincidence just like the colonization of the Americas and other lands and nations, exploration of the Artic Poles, the Scientific Revolution, the Industrial Revolution, etc.

Pure coincidence.

Post: #107

(04-26-2017 01:00 PM)All or Nothing Wrote:  

(04-26-2017 12:45 PM)Uruz Wrote:  Well the only argument that needs to be said against this is. - You have't really travelled much boy, have ya?

You can only come to this conclusion if you ignore the reasoning laid out in the rest of my post. I will lay out my reasoning again.

The fact that:
-The Ottoman's expansion led to the blocking of trade routes to the East forced the Europeans to find new trade routes
-That this happened at a time where technological development in Europe was advanced enough to shift into becoming a seafaring society
-That Columbus accidentally discovered the Americas rather than finding a new trade route to India and China
-That Columbus' discovery sparked European colonization of the America's before any other advanced society could begun such a migration (like China, Ottomans, Japanese, or Indians)
-That this increased the European's access to resources and territory, which drove up their political power

IS EXTREME LUCK. The discovery of and timing of the discovery of the America's, which evolved into a period of mass colonization is based almost entirely on PURELY COINCIDENTAL factors.

Please explain to me in a logical format that rebuts my points on how the period of European colonization (which ultimately evolved into European nations becoming global powers) was due to innate factors rather than purely coincidental ones.

Also, if the Europeans are so dominant, why is China and India becoming more powerful than the EU or the US?

Post: #108

It's much easier to pull down a statue and win a "virtuous" and symbolic victory against racism than to address the actual needs of black people in New Orleans, or many other Democratically governed cities, e.g. Chicago and Baltimore.

Post: #109

(04-26-2017 01:00 PM)All or Nothing Wrote:  

(04-26-2017 12:45 PM)Uruz Wrote:  Well the only argument that needs to be said against this is. - You have't really travelled much boy, have ya?

You can only come to this conclusion if you ignore the reasoning laid out in the rest of my post. I will lay out my reasoning again.

The fact that:
-The Ottoman's expansion led to the blocking of trade routes to the East forced the Europeans to find new trade routes
-That this happened at a time where technological development in Europe was advanced enough to shift into becoming a seafaring society
-That Columbus accidentally discovered the Americas rather than finding a new trade route to India and China
-That Columbus' discovery sparked European colonization of the America's before any other advanced society could begun such a migration (like China, Ottomans, Japanese, or Indians)
-That this increased the European's access to resources and territory, which drove up their political power

IS EXTREME LUCK. The discovery of and timing of the discovery of the America's, which evolved into a period of mass colonization is based almost entirely on PURELY COINCIDENTAL factors.

Please explain to me in a logical format that rebuts my points on how the period of European colonization (which ultimately evolved into European nations becoming global powers) was due to innate factors rather than purely coincidental ones.

Also, if the Europeans are so dominant, why is China and India becoming more powerful than the EU or the US?

Ok, I will be a nice boy.

First off, we did all this despite christianity, not thanks to. It divided us and fucked us over for about 1000 years and finally we naturally reject the jewish poison from our minds and bodies.

Ottomans would not exist if there was no christianity, they are central asian immigrants who took over Greek territory because christians were busy fighting each other "cause one type of christian is the right one and the other type are evil worshippers". The same goes for Ottoman occupation of Balkans and southern Europa, we survived christianity, not advanced because of this, it put us back a lot.

Have you even heard that even those simple, technically primitive Vikings discovered Americas? You are acting like Europeans need some fucking industry to discover the world.

We did not get shit from colonising, in fact we colonised muslim world and africa because they were pirate powers that raided and enslaved white people as far as Iceland, not because we would get wealth from those shitholes, but because we were tired of watching our people being taken into slavery.

You could even say that we did not get shit from colonising Americas, all influences that US had on Europe I can think of are - Choosing the wrong side and making half of Europa Bolshevik for quite some time, taming and raping the other half. - Nowdays importing feminism, obesity, homosexuality, equality etc.

And China and India being advanced in that time? Come on, there was no such thing as "India" before and Chinese? All they could do with gun powder was some fucking firecrackers, we came, saw that and realised.. Ooo, if we put this into a barrel and put a projectile in, hmmm... And we went on fucking the entire world in the ass.

But I am not arguing for civilisation or that it proves anything, civilisation is for weak, I am not fond of it. Just saying couple of things that came to my mind.

Post: #110

(04-26-2017 01:00 PM)All or Nothing Wrote:  

(04-26-2017 12:45 PM)Uruz Wrote:  Well the only argument that needs to be said against this is. - You have't really travelled much boy, have ya?

You can only come to this conclusion if you ignore the reasoning laid out in the rest of my post. I will lay out my reasoning again.

The fact that:
-The Ottoman's expansion led to the blocking of trade routes to the East forced the Europeans to find new trade routes
-That this happened at a time where technological development in Europe was advanced enough to shift into becoming a seafaring society
-That Columbus accidentally discovered the Americas rather than finding a new trade route to India and China
-That Columbus' discovery sparked European colonization of the America's before any other advanced society could begun such a migration (like China, Ottomans, Japanese, or Indians)
-That this increased the European's access to resources and territory, which drove up their political power

IS EXTREME LUCK. The discovery of and timing of the discovery of the America's, which evolved into a period of mass colonization is based almost entirely on PURELY COINCIDENTAL factors.

Please explain to me in a logical format that rebuts my points on how the period of European colonization (which ultimately evolved into European nations becoming global powers) was due to innate factors rather than purely coincidental ones.

Also, if the Europeans are so dominant, why is China and India becoming more powerful than the EU or the US?

Where does the Romans and Greeks stand in the middle of all of this?

You should also read about the Portuguese Empire and its role in the East. Or about the treaties of Tordesillas and Zaragoza. It is a fallacy saying that the age discoveries was by accident. Columbus discovery was not an accident, he knew the earth was spherical, he knew the Portuguese already had reached the Indic ocean going eastwards, and he wanted to reach there going westwards...only to find America in the way.

Post: #111

What color were the uniforms of the masked workers who removed the monument ?
Blue or Gray ?

Post: #112

Besides, I would say if I wanted to make argument in favour of "White Supremacy" only one thing. - Take 5 Uber rides in Colombia.

Post: #113

(04-26-2017 01:00 PM)All or Nothing Wrote:  

(04-26-2017 12:45 PM)Uruz Wrote:  Well the only argument that needs to be said against this is. - You have't really travelled much boy, have ya?

You can only come to this conclusion if you ignore the reasoning laid out in the rest of my post. I will lay out my reasoning again.

The fact that:
-The Ottoman's expansion led to the blocking of trade routes to the East forced the Europeans to find new trade routes
-That this happened at a time where technological development in Europe was advanced enough to shift into becoming a seafaring society
-That Columbus accidentally discovered the Americas rather than finding a new trade route to India and China
-That Columbus' discovery sparked European colonization of the America's before any other advanced society could begun such a migration (like China, Ottomans, Japanese, or Indians)
-That this increased the European's access to resources and territory, which drove up their political power

IS EXTREME LUCK. The discovery of and timing of the discovery of the America's, which evolved into a period of mass colonization is based almost entirely on PURELY COINCIDENTAL factors.

Please explain to me in a logical format that rebuts my points on how the period of European colonization (which ultimately evolved into European nations becoming global powers) was due to innate factors rather than purely coincidental ones.

Also, if the Europeans are so dominant, why is China and India becoming more powerful than the EU or the US?

Sorry man, you have no idea what you're talking about. You've got some facts right, but you're acting like history starts when Constantinople fell.

Conveniently left out:

The only reason the Spanish were interested in getting around the Ottomans was because they HATED Muslims. The Spanish had just overthrown a 600 year tyranny by the Moors and wanted nothing to do with Muslim scum. They figured if they could find a trade route around the Ottomans to the east, they would severely cripple their mortal enemy.

That is why the Queen was interested in the first place of funding Colombus' expedition. Colombus, by the way, who had White knowledge passed down to him via the Renaissance that the world was round (a discovery from antiquity). And the Renaissance was merely the side effect of the betrayal of the Fourth Crusade when Greek scholars fled Constantinople after the Catholics sacked and raped it.

Now, here's why the "luck" explanation makes no sense. It was not luck the Spanish overthrew the Moors. It took hundreds of years of resistance, and tens of thousands Spanish lives who fought for freedom. Then they even kicked out the Jews for good measure (because they would not convert to Christianity, it were widely suspected of aiding Muslims behind everyone's back) and became a world superpower for 100 years. That is no coincidence, it took centuries of deliberate action to achieve what the Spanish did.

It was not luck some Greek monitored the stars and discovered the world was round. Anyone had access to stars, yet only a White guy figured it out.

Likewise, on the other side of the Mediterranean, the only reason the Byzantine empire fell to the Ottomans was because of the betrayal of the Fourth Crusade two centuries earlier. The Catholics destroyed the Orthodox Church in the most sinful backstab of all time, and the Byzantine empire never recovered. It was easy pickings for the inferior Ottomans afterwards.

Muslims had been trying for centuries to conquer Byzantium, and were crushed several dozen times in major battles. Although the Muslims started off with White/Caucasian leadership, their affinity for endless Black slave girls slowly diluted the blood of the Islamic peoples where they could no longer compete with White Europeans. The r-selection weakened them over time (not to mention cousin marriage).

Christians, on the other hand, practiced marriage and monogamy, which means that even if you race mix it still came out K-selected in the long run hence why most Christians stayed White (even in the Middle East).

And if we go even further back, we find that the only reason Spain fell to Islam in the first place was because the Byzantines waged a costly and highly destructive war against the Persians (called the Sassanid empire back in 600 AD) which completely exhausted both armies. Islam then came in quickly after both sides were severely weakened, and took Iran from the Zoroastrian Persians and took the Middle East from the Christian Byzantines including North Africa. After North Africa fell it was a hop and a skip into Spain, which was still fucked up from the endless Roman Civil Wars 100 years prior plus Germanic barbarian invasions.

Therefore, your thesis that Whites benefited from luck is completely false and the opposite is true; it was the non-Whites who have been the lucky ones attacking Whites after they were done killing each other which enabled their victory. When Whites are united they rule over everyone as we see during the Roman Empire or the modern Western Empire, but when they fight each other it creates opportunities for the less creative races. That's the pattern easily observed through recorded history.

Post: #114

(04-26-2017 10:59 AM)Chevy Woonsocket Wrote:  The victors get to write history because there is nobody to stop them, not because they are morally superior.

There is no such thing as moral superiority because morals are defined by cultures and are not absolute.

There is only one kind of superiority: power.

Post: #115

(04-26-2017 01:00 PM)All or Nothing Wrote:  Please explain to me in a logical format that rebuts my points on how the period of European colonization (which ultimately evolved into European nations becoming global powers) was due to innate factors rather than purely coincidental ones.

I define Western Civilization along Vox Day's definition which includes three things:

1) Christianity
2) The European people
3) The Graeco-Roman legacy

So, why did Western Civilization conquer the world as opposed to anyone else?

Because of the concept of the Individual that was peculiar to that area of the globe.

In the West, we reckoned that the world was made of rational bits and pieces by a rational God, and if you made a model of those bits you could take it apart and learn how it worked, and then use that knowledge for personal advancement, that is to say, bringing about change.

Other cultures just didn't see change or personal advancement that way. The Chinese invented a lot of stuff but they hardly ever used it to bring about change. If you discovered a new type of sail that was superior, it didn't matter because you were a merchant's son, and that's where you'd have stayed.

Post: #116

As for the Civil War - Weambulance is wrong. Lincoln was not the aggressor, anyone who studies the Civil War will find that the Southerners were the SJWs of the day. They were violent, irrational, and constantly virtue signaling about their rights as Southerners. They fired the first shots that started the Civil War.

Lincoln didn't want to invade the South, but after the South became more and more belligerent it eventually pissed off the common Northern Man to the point where he wanted to invade and kick their asses. Lincoln was merely channeling the anger.

And while it was true the South left the Union because they wanted to spread slaves to states out West, it is not true the North fought to end slavery. The common White man of the North wanted to preserve the country his ancestors had fought and died for against the British, and did not think the South was justified in leaving the Union. Northerners did not see the South's grievances as legitimate, since no Southern state had been forced to do anything against their wills. The only thing the Northerners wanted was to stop the spread of slavery into the American West, as well as put up some tariffs against Britain. The idea that the South could simply leave the Union and start killing anyone who did not think like them was unfathomable to Northerners.

I remember reading a letter from a New Hampshire soldier to his mother. He wrote, "I ain't fighting no war for a bunch of niggers." Sums up Northern attitudes 100%. They were fighting because they viewed Southern behavior as savage and irrational. You even had that Southern Congressman attack the Northern Congressman while in Congress and practically killed the man.

The South was arrogant, and God humbled them. That's all that happened in the Civil War. The Blacks got a chance to prove to the White racists how wrong they were, and for awhile succeeded by taking care of themselves and voting to be free men under the Republican banner. But that only lasted for a hundred years from 1860-1960, and have been voting Democrat ever since in order to get lots of free shit but live under servitude. This supports the old Southern White racist ideology. The Confederates may still get the last laugh.

Post: #117

I didn't want to become involved in this thread, but come on:

(04-26-2017 12:36 PM)All or Nothing Wrote:  Algebra was created in the Gulf States.

Seriously, lets's read it again:

(04-26-2017 12:36 PM)All or Nothing Wrote:  Algebra was created in the Gulf States.

It is simplistic statements like this one that make your understanding of history seem highly superficial and shallow. At best.

I would really recommend reading up on the topic, the history of mathematics is a fascinating one indeed.

Post: #118

(04-26-2017 01:30 PM)Samseau Wrote:  It was not luck the Spanish overthrew the Moors. It took hundreds of years of resistance, and tens of thousands Spanish lives who fought for freedom.
Then they even kicked out the Jews for good measure (because they would not convert to Christianity, it were widely suspected of aiding Muslims behind everyone's back)

Post: #119

Removal of the monuments is a solution searching for a problem. People need to 'let old dogs lye'. Confederate monuments were a part of healing a nation and each side reaching out and cooperating with the other side to rebuild and let bygones be bygones.

If you visit DC and drive across the Memorial Bridge you'll notice that it connects the Lincoln Memorial to the Robert E. Lee Memorial. This was not by accident it was a symbol of forgiveness and mutual respect. The monuments should stay.

Post: #120

First of all - those monuments were not created to glorify slavery or slave-owners.

Second - we are very willingly forgetting the first roughly 500.000 white slaves that were brought to the south.

Third - only 1.6% of Whites in the south had slaves

Fourth - a higher percentage of freed wealthy blacks had slaves than whites. William Ellison was one of the biggest slave owners in the South and he was black:



Fifth - the statues were erected in the historical context and the men depicted were not mainly known for the slavery angle, but for other achievements

Sixth - the historical context to all other nations would be practically the entire Muslim world (slavery is permited and condoned there and everyone was a slave owner beginning with Mohammed up to 1975 in some countries). In addition historical context has to be taken into account also when other so-called great leaders are concerned - some of them who have single-handedly wiped out other nations or done terrible things, but also good things.

For example - there were some great African kings in the past before the pre-colonial period:


http://thegrio.com/2015/06/21/great-african-kings/

Some of those kings had slaves, cooperated with Muslim and Western slave traders, some completely wiped out other tribes in a brutal way. In most cases it is ancient history, but they have likely done far worse things than the men whose statues have been taken down now.

You have to realize that some of the men like Robert E Lee were just born in the system they were.

Personally I would not care if the monuments were taken down, but doing it in darkness and in this way reeks of pandering to SJW-memes.

Taking down this recent monument seems more or less justified to me, but they eliminated Robert E Lee's statue in 2015 and that is far worse in my opinion.

Either way - I expect the SJW-crowd to go on a further rampage in their attempts to pander to Antifa-like ideologies.

Post: #121

(04-26-2017 12:36 PM)All or Nothing Wrote:  The success of the Europeans over the last 500-600 years was HEAVILY COINCIDENTAL. Extremely luck based due to combination of political factors and technological development.

There was was a lot more involved than just this but if even if we go by what you said, that European success was a combination of political factors (factors which the Europeans created and developed) and technological advancement (technology that the Europeans created and developed) then it wasn't coincidental, now was it?

Post: #122

(04-26-2017 03:05 PM)Teutatis Wrote:  

(04-26-2017 12:36 PM)All or Nothing Wrote:  The success of the Europeans over the last 500-600 years was HEAVILY COINCIDENTAL. Extremely luck based due to combination of political factors and technological development.

There was was a lot more involved than just this but if even if we go by what you said, that European success was a combination of political factors (factors which the Europeans created and developed) and technological advancement (technology that the Europeans created and developed) then it wasn't coincidental, now was it?

Damn you, I'm just getting caught up on this thread and was about to point this out.

I admit though, I'm just having a laugh right now about all this.

Samseau, I believe it you'll look into the matter more, there was some very big trade issues that Southerners thought were unfair and oppressive. Also if you look at what happened post civil war during "reconstruction" you'll see some very very unfair practices for southerners to pay their "war debts".

Repo - maybe you haven't thought it through, but you are the only person pointing out that it's not "all" white people this statue removal is shitting on but somehow the people of the era.

I'm pretty sure that most do not at all make that distinction, and I'm also sure you are well aware of that.

After traveling the world for the last 4-5 years, it is obvious to me that there is in fact a war on white people in the US.

So while this singular action doesn't really effect me, I know the meaning behind the actions, and I won't pretend I don't.

Post: #123

When leftys began to erase the physical elements of history, is because they want to rewrite history. That revisionist of history is one of the main tools from the left. First are the monuments, then the books.

I think the only time whenits ok to destroy monuments is when you destroy´s the legacy of a dictator/s (Lenin´s comes to mind).

(04-26-2017 01:30 PM)Samseau Wrote:  It was not luck the Spanish overthrew the Moors. It took hundreds of years of resistance, and tens of thousands Spanish lives who fought for freedom.
Then they even kicked out the Jews for good measure (because they would not convert to Christianity, it were widely suspected of aiding Muslims behind everyone's back)

They served the muslim rulers in Spain, mostly as middle-high gov managment, or as professionals (medics, etc).

Post: #124

(04-26-2017 03:29 PM)Mekorig Wrote:  When leftys began to erase the physical elements of history, is because they want to rewrite history. That revisionist of history is one of the main tools from the left. First are the monuments, then the books.

I think the only time whenits ok to destroy monuments is when you destroy´s the legacy of a dictator/s (Lenin´s comes to mind).

Personally I have been travelling around the former communist block and I think that they went overboard by eliminating all the communist effigies of the leaders. They should have kept some which were done well. It is a reminder of dark times - add some explanation to it if you want, but leave it there as a symbol of a period in the history of the country.

I think that the people sometimes are too thin-skinned and want to wipe out everything that triggers them in some way or form. I am certain that millions of people would have wanted to photograph themselves next to a Lenin statue in Prague or Warsaw. History is not always meant to be pretty - sometimes it is better to remember the evil just as well, so that it does not repeat itself.

Post: #125

(04-26-2017 01:05 PM)quino_16 Wrote:  Yup.

I guess everything Europeans/whites did was heavily coincidental such as launching a man to the moon.

Obviously, that was pure coincidence and good luck. Never mind, everything else that went into planning, design, execution, etc. - it was pure coincidence just like the colonization of the Americas and other lands and nations, exploration of the Artic Poles, the Scientific Revolution, the Industrial Revolution, etc.

Pure coincidence.

Obviously, I am making my case in the most polarizing way possible.

I want to clarify the point I am trying to make here. A lot of you guys are making the underlying assumption that the success of Europeans is attributable to some innate factors that belong to Europeans while I am trying to argue that the success of Europeans is due to many factors independent of Europeans as a people.

The case I am trying to make here is that the success of Europeans is due to: geographic location, exposure to external cultures, environmental pressures, exposure to trade and technology developed outside of Europe, and political pressures rather than it being due to some innate traits of the Europeans themselves.

(04-26-2017 01:24 PM)Rocha Wrote:  Where does the Romans and Greeks stand in the middle of all of this?

You should also read about the Portuguese Empire and its role in the East. Or about the treaties of Tordesillas and Zaragoza. It is a fallacy saying that the age discoveries was by accident. Columbus discovery was not an accident, he knew the earth was spherical, he knew the Portuguese already had reached the Indic ocean going eastwards, and he wanted to reach there going westwards...only to find America in the way.

Finding America rather than India was the coincidence. That was the point I was trying to make is that the initial seed that lead to the colonization of the Americas happened purely by accident when Columbus "rediscovered" America for the Europeans rather than finding India.

Also, I am trying to narrow the time period to 1400-1900, since that time period was when Europe rose to become a global powerhouse. Before the 1400's I don't believe that the Europeans were thought to be a dominant group geopolitically. Most of the power was to the East, China most likely or at least that was what I believe historians have said.

(04-26-2017 01:53 PM)Belgrano Wrote:  It is simplistic statements like this one that make your understanding of history seem highly superficial and shallow. At best.

I would really recommend reading up on the topic, the history of mathematics is a fascinating one indeed.

The depth of my understanding of history varies on location and time period. I'll admit that wide portions are shallow, but that doesn't negate the facts that I bring to the table.

Given the direction my readings are taking me, I'll probably be learning about the Roman Republic and early empire along with 1750-1950 American history. My depth in different areas will grow as I learn more over the years.

If you have your own ideas to contribute, it would help to present more information so I can learn rather than mocking my knowledge.