Why did white people become more advanced than other races?

[Prometheus]

For about 1000 years, not in 1000AD. That was a very rough estimate based on Roman regional dominance for about 500 years then European colonial dominance for about 500 years. So at a very generous stretch we could say 'white' civilisations were dominant for 1000 of the 6000 years of recorded human history. That doesn't fit with the idea that white races are more advanced for biological reasons.

 

Edit: Ah, you thought i meant 1000 years starting from 1000AD.

 

But that's kind of my point anyway, this is a historical discussion, not a biological one.

Edited October 17, 2016 by Prometheus

[CharonY]

Yes, I understood it as "for the last 1000 years", sorry for that. I would add that the Roman sphere of influence was somewhat more limited and it was dominance mostly over other European groups as well as part of Middle East and North Africa. In the East the Han empire was a dominating power, for example. Or one could count in the various rivals and enemies that the Roman empire has faced (and most often eventually overcome).

But you are right, there is no doubt that this is not a biological discussion. I will move it to the politics section for now as it is the closest I can think of in terms of topic.

[Prometheus]

The Han court was influenced by the eunuchs by the time of Rome's height and was declining towards the 3 states period of turmoil, and i can't think of any other states that could match Rome (certainly at its height). But imagine if Hannibal had taken Rome - he came so close - or if the Mongols had not invaded the Arab world allowing the Caliphates extra resources to invade most of Europe as they nearly did a couple of times (siege of Vienna x 2). Or if the Chinese Emperor hadn't burned their powerful fleets just as Europe started to explore the seas, or...

 

Then we would have someone asking the biological reason why 'white' people have never had a dominant civilisation or advanced as much as other races.

[CharonY]

The question was about being advanced (which I also somewhat side-stepped) and not about enduring success. While the Han dynasty ended before the Roman empire (considering that its decline was longer than the whole duration of many other empires, especially if one takes the Eastern empire as the end point), one could argue that it did not end the empire per se, as most cultural and technological developments carried over.

I think it is also a bit tricky to define influence exclusively at their height as often it is the time when they finally managed to squash their rivals. Yet up to that point often we find significant interactions (such as trade along the silk road). However, if we take the time around 100 AD we have the Parthian empire, while not a rival in size it was a major player with overlapping spheres of influence (and eventually defeated). And obviously, throughout history cultures have developed and vanished and it is almost impossible to put a label of more or less "advanced" on them.

E,g, the Roman empire has used a lot of technical developments that were around for far longer and their military dominance was far more derived from doctrine than technology. Conversely, the Chinese developed gun powder but still lost the arms race in the long.

The Nok culture was thought to have a very advanced in various areas, including iron smelting, yet it vanished by AD 300. But I think we can clearly dismiss the biology behind all these questions.

[Hans de Vries]

You should not forget that a very impressive period of growth occured in Europe between 1000 and 1500 AD. It simply took time to rebound from the collapse of Rome, a disaster that could only be compared to a major nuclear war.

[Delta1212]

You should not forget that a very impressive period of growth occured in Europe between 1000 and 1500 AD. It simply took time to rebound from the collapse of Rome, a disaster that could only be compared to a major nuclear war.

Careful swinging that hyperbole around. You might break something.

[Hans de Vries]

When a major civilization reverts back to a much earlier stage of development, how do you call it?

 

The decline was so severe that even writing barely survived in some rare, far-spread monasteries.

[CharonY]

You should not forget that a very impressive period of growth occured in Europe between 1000 and 1500 AD. It simply took time to rebound from the collapse of Rome, a disaster that could only be compared to a major nuclear war.

 

There was no catastrophic collapse, more like slow continuous process in which the Roman empire had to cede political influence. Also successor states were established almost immediately and there was continuity throughout. As such it is rather silly to compare it to a massive destructive process. Instead it is probably be more precise to frame it as a cultural and social transformation. Unless you are actually subscribing to the dark ages myth, which really never existed.

 

Edit: I see now that you indeed subscribe to that and no, there was no reversion of civilization. As a fundamental issue there is no linear advancement of society unless you use 19th century ideas of unilineal social and cultural evolution, which have been thoroughly dismissed. Which makes it two myths...

Edited October 18, 2016 by CharonY

[Hans de Vries]

I realize that the it wasn't an abrupt event. Neverthles, it's outcome was basically a return to pre-Roman levels of development - nearly total collapse of cities and cessation of almost all economic activity above the level of a small village - Rome itself went from having a population of at least 500,000 to less than 50,000 and for centuries it was still the largest European city by a significant margin. (in Charlemagne's times there were still less than 10 urban areas with population above 20,000 people in all of Western Europe).

 

Moreover, all cultural activity virtually ceased and did not return to Principate (early Imperial) levels until maybe 1200s in Italy and 1400s in the rest of Europe.

Edited October 18, 2016 by Hans de Vries

[MigL]

Some have made the argument that the Roman Empire never really ended until modern times.

Rome was not changed by the 'barbarian' invasions, but rather the 'barbarians' took on Roman ways.

The center of the Empire may have moved north, and classical knowledge lost during the so called 'dark ages', but the Habsburg monarchy of the Austro-Hungarian Empire rightfully referred to themselves as the Holy Roman Empire until 1918.

( Northern European emperors even referred to themselves as Caesar, i.e. Kaiser and Tsar )

[CharonY]

Immediate decline in a number of key issues, including the loss of political stability and that successor states simply did not have the influence or power than Rome as a a larger entity had. Concurrently, some areas were cut off from major trade routes which significantly impacted economies. One could possibly even argue that political instability persisted until the ~11th century which may have influenced development. Of note, the drop of living standards varied throughout the Empire with evidence pointing towards a rather large decline in Britain, fueled again by massive wars between provinces. In what constitutes now Italy, things were impacted by the later wars but stabilized afterward quite quickly. Disruptions of trade an food supplies large centers, including Rome itself, became unsustainable and in that regard we have collapse. Yet this is only part of the story.

 

Of note, the other half of the Roman Empire continued to exist for another ~1000 years before it also collapsed. As such, the cultural centre moved toward the East fueled by trade and interaction with the Islamic countries (as well as via the Silk Road far to the East). And it is a bit of scholarly dishonesty to somehow ignore that (not addressed to OP, but it is somewhat persistent in many older history books).

 

The myth part really is that in a cultural and technological sense everything was on halt West of the Byzantines until the Renaissance. Usually, this is a combination of overstating accomplishments of the Renaissance (with many developments pre-dated by the 10th century Byzantines) and are truly just a continuation of developments that happened during the middle ages. Prime examples are improvement in agriculture that occurred in that period. Likewise looking at the literature surrounding the formation of the Holy Roman Empire, the Lombards and especially the Carolingians there is not evidence that somehow cultural achievements stopped happening or reverted into a more primitive form. Yes, the collapse had significant economic impact and cultural developments had to work around it, but when things stabilized we see things such as the Carolingian and Ottonian renaissance. Technological developments were maintained and improved and some scholars maintain that it was actually higher (possibly due to immediate challenges due to warfare, famine etc.) than it was between 1200 and 1400.

[Over 9000]

No, It Ain’t Gonna Be Like That, Satoshi Kanazawa,,London School of Economics and Political Science

 

Abstract: For cultural, social, and institutional reasons, Asians cannot make original contributions to basic science. I therefore doubt Miller's prediction for the Asian future of evolutionary psychology. I believe that its future will continue to be in the United States and Europe.

 

http://personal.lse.ac.uk/kanazawa/pdfs/EP2006a.pdf

 

I also imagine creativity could have a genetic basis. I am not aware of studies of racial variation in this.

 

Also.

 

Could the Industrial Revolution’s explosion in affluence have been made possible in Great Britain by genetic changes in human nature?

 

That’s the controversial theory of Gregory Clark, an economic historian at the University of California, Davis.

 

As described by the New York Times, Davis shows that, from 1200 to 1800, the English were "locked in a Malthusian trap," with each advance in production quickly offset by population growth that devoured the surplus wealth. As a result, the average English person ate fewer calories in 1790 than a hunter-g atherer a millennia before. But at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, productivity increases outpaced population growth and average incomes rose. The origins of the jump have perplexed historians.

 

Clark developed his theory while testing Jared Diamond’s argument that British success was rooted in their evolution of disease resistance. He combed through ancient wills, looking for a relationship between wealth and offspring, and found that the rich consistently had more surviving children than the poor.

 

That meant there must have been constant downward social mobility as the poor failed to reproduce themselves and the progeny of the rich took over their occupations. “The modern population of the English is largely descended from the economic upper classes of the Middle Ages,” he concluded.

 

As the progeny of the rich pervaded all levels of society, Dr. Clark considered, the behaviors that made for wealth could have spread with them. He has documented that several aspects of what might now be called middle-class values changed significantly from the days of hunter gatherer societies to 1800. Work hours increased, literacy and numeracy rose, and the level of interpersonal violence dropped.

 

Dr. Clark says the middle-class values needed for productivity could have been transmitted either culturally or genetically. But in some passages, he seems to lean toward evolution as the explanation.

“Through the long agrarian passage leading up to the Industrial Revolution, man was becoming biologically more adapted to the modern economic world,” he writes. And, “The triumph of capitalism in the modern world thus may lie as much in our genes as in ideology or rationality.”

 

 

https://www.wired.com/2007/08/a-genetic-expla/

Edited October 21, 2016 by Over 9000

[Ten oz]

Europeans had advanced technology so they got to enslaved and control millions of people. Was it because they just knew how to use their resources more than other races or was it because they just have superiority complex? Why do you think white people developed more than blacks, asians, etc..?

Saying Europeans had advance technology is simple inaccurate. Knowledge and the technology it has produced is accumulative. Every region has contributed. Magnetic compasses from Asia, algebra from the Middle East, Irin smelting from West Africa, and etc, etc.

 

At different points in History various regions have had varying degrees of imperialistic might. Within Europe alone that might has bounced around between Greece, Italy, Spain, France, England, Germany, and etc. If we include all of Europe than Russia and Turkey too has been powerful. In my opinion your question isn't specific enough to answer unless we take a few things for granted like: we have a working definition for race, whites (as defined by whatever) in fact "developed more" than others, we are only looking back far as about antiquities, and etc.

 

The Han court was influenced by the eunuchs by the time of Rome's height and was declining towards the 3 states period of turmoil, and i can't think of any other states that could match Rome (certainly at its height). But imagine if Hannibal had taken Rome - he came so close - or if the Mongols had not invaded the Arab world allowing the Caliphates extra resources to invade most of Europe as they nearly did a couple of times (siege of Vienna x 2). Or if the Chinese Emperor hadn't burned their powerful fleets just as Europe started to explore the seas, or...

 

Then we would have someone asking the biological reason why 'white' people have never had a dominant civilisation or advanced as much as other races.

Many simple things would have changed history. Imagine if the native peoples had simply killed the Spanish rather than initially working with them. I am sure there were nurmerous times it almost happened. The whole world from the Americas, Europe, Asia, and Africa would be a very different place today. How many incredible discoveries may have been subverted by religion, geniuses killed before they made their dicoveries, or plagues spread just because a couple of people who were sick decided to travel rather than stay home.

 

The thread treats the advancement of human technology as linear when it isn't. Sometimes yeast just blows into wet grains and fermentation happens.Some nomadic tribes exploring new terrority happen up a lake full of fish. Others happen upon a lake with contaminated water. People get lucky and people unlucky.

[Country Boy]

I'm getting into this late but I question the basis of the initial post. The Chinese and Japanese had technology that was, in many ways more advanced than the Europeans and they also conquered other peoples. The mongol invasion which put all of eastern Europe under their thumb and reached into France, until they simply left, was due to a technological advance- they had the stirrup which Europeans did not. And the arabs, with their own technology, conquered all the way from Arabia through Africa and southern Europe.

[CharonY]

While it is true that some technological advances played a role, military superiority is usually due to a combination of factors (including e.g. doctrine and logistics) rather than a singular invention. Specifically regarding stirrups examples were found in Europe well before the Mongols arrived (ca, 7th century) and were common in a number of European areas certainly by the 9th century.

[Airbrush]

Is the title of this discussion not racist? It makes the assumption that the white race is more advanced than others, which is absurd.

Edited October 26, 2016 by Airbrush

[swansont]

Is the title of this discussion not racist? It makes the assumption that the white race is more advanced than others, which is absurd.

Technology, not genetics.

[Airbrush]

What about the dark ages in Europe while technology was advancing in China (gun powder, paper, etc), and science and math was developed in the Middle East by the Arabs? Europe later used the science and math from the Arabs and technology from China to develop other technology. Or am I missing something?

Edited October 27, 2016 by Airbrush

[swansont]

What about the dark ages in Europe while technology was advancing in China (gun powder, paper, etc), and science and math was developed in the Middle East by the Arabs? Europe later used the science and math from the Arabs and technology from China to develop other technology. Or am I missing something?

 

 

I think you're missing that the OP wasn't asking about the state of affairs in the middle ages.

[Delta1212]

White people are more evolved. Plus, I would not say that environment conditions play a major role. There are black people with tons of degrees in any field, but still on a scale they are nowhere as intelligent as thier counterparts white people. Since evolution, it could be either the matter of genes or the way white and black people are bringing up.

The phrase "more evolved" literally does not mean anything. Evolution does not have levels. Nothing is more evolved than anything else. Things are either alive or they are dead. There is no other ranking.

 

As for the rest, [citation needed]

[Ophiolite]

White people are more evolved. Plus, I would not say that environment conditions play a major role. There are black people with tons of degrees in any field, but still on a scale they are nowhere as intelligent as thier counterparts white people. Since evolution, it could be either the matter of genes or the way white and black people are bringing up.

Of course some white people are surprisingly ignorant, lacking critical thinking skills and having only the most basic elements of intellect. Sometimes we don't have to look far to find them.

[Phi for All]

Of course some white people are surprisingly ignorant, lacking critical thinking skills and having only the most basic elements of intellect. Sometimes we don't have to look far to find them.

 

!

Moderator Note

LucasRun was apparently here to advertise a homework service. The added racism had nothing to do with his being spambanned.

[Presbreeze]

On 10/17/2016 at 11:45 AM, CharonY said:

Around 1000 there was certainly no European dominance. They were still trying to catch up to the Muslim world. The Song empire brought developments that are still in use. And the n stage is still waiting for the subsequent Mongol rule that is going to shape history until now. European dominance, if t you want to call it, was only sealed starting sometime in the 17th-18th century.

Lol the Muslim world just started 400 years before the year 1000..... it was ALL European dominance over 1000 years before the year 1000! And it was ruled by Catholics and Pagans before that. Mongolian empire which was Muslim was in the 12-1300s so speaking anything about them is irrelevant. Same for the Song “dynasty” ruled a part of the east for a few hundred years lmao! Nothing compared to European rule which lasted 1000s of years and still does under its grandchild “ U.S.A”

Edited November 27, 2018 by Presbreeze

[quiet]

Talking about races implies talking about numerous groups, communities, collective processes. Then you can not reach valid conclusions without taking into account everything.

Before asking why the white race has advanced more than others in acquiring instruments of global power, there is an obvious fact that demands explanation. When the transport allowed to cross oceans, mountain ranges and all the great geographical obstacles, the races mixed. Before that each race was located in a totally specific region, as a continent or a part of a continent separated from the other parts by geographical obstacles insurmountable for the time.

Why, before the development of modern transport, were the races geographically separated, each in a specific region? Just as in Thermodynamics the gases do not separate spontaneously, we can not suppose that initially mixed races have separated into geographical regions because they decided so themselves one day. The separation can not be the result of a voluntary decision made by the races. The cause of the separation came from another instance, not the races that have been geographically isolated.

I know that this fact can be picked up by currents of thought that, according to the preferences of each one, will make the interpretation that they like the most. It is not an interpretation at ease what the objective fact claims. The fact calls for a thorough investigation, which, if it has been carried out, has not been turned to popular knowledge. We ignore the origin of the human species, ignore the cause of racial geographic isolation and, as part of a large set of ignored details, we ignore why the white race has progressed more than others in acquiring the media to dominate the world.

[swansont]

13 hours ago, Presbreeze said:

Lol the Muslim world just started 400 years before the year 1000..... it was ALL European dominance over 1000 years before the year 1000! And it was ruled by Catholics and Pagans before that. Mongolian empire which was Muslim was in the 12-1300s so speaking anything about them is irrelevant. Same for the Song “dynasty” ruled a part of the east for a few hundred years lmao! Nothing compared to European rule which lasted 1000s of years and still does under its grandchild “ U.S.A”

What was the extent of the European "dominance" in 1000? They dominated...Europe, and the Mediterranean basin. 

After that, their "dominance" was aided by have more advantages than in other places, as discussed in the book mentioned early in the thread: Guns, Germs and Steel, by Jared Diamond.