Besides Egypt, is there a single most powerful civilization with Brown skin color?

submitted by radicalcentristNational Centrism from self.debatealtright

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Rakean93Identitarian socialist 6 insightful - 4 fun6 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 4 fun -  (26 children)

yeah, tons of dark skinned prominent civilizations, like libyans, indians, aztec and so on. I could consider the argument about the center and south africans beeing particularly incapable of developing any meaningful civilization, but at this point we should take also in account that the most northern europeans happily lived in primitive tribalistic civilizations until Charlemagne showed up slaughtering saxons until they were enough christianized.

On a personal note, i think that you are a strange kind of white supremacist from the '50, but that doesn't really makes sense right now. Whites (anglos) DO have the global supremacy, it's just degenerate and anti-ethnic. Common knowledge today is that you can't really compare white, blacks, yellows and any other funny color-race around, so anyone should be able to have his ethnic nation-state and be happy by himself.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (25 children)

yeah, tons of dark skinned prominent civilizations, like libyans

Proof the Libyans are dark skin? I imagined they looked like this (Zinedane Zidane whose parents are North African).

https://files.catbox.moe/eqxuli.jpeg

indians,

I've heard theories that India's only greatness was when the Aryans had invaded the continent. But other wise, the Indian race has never been a world power. Just look at how India gained their independence. Gandhi may have lead a non-violent movement, but the Brits got the last laugh and split their country into two (i.e Pakistan & India). And of course, look at India today? They're worse off than when the British tried to tame them.

aztec and so on.

Perhaps compared to the other Amerindians living on the continent. But their place in history is still closer to being slightly more advanced savages. For example, the temples they built only served a purpose for sacrificing humans so the sun could rise each day. Compare that to the "light skin" people who built Cathedrals or Coliseums that served as community centers or theaters of entertainment.

but at this point we should take also in account that the most northern europeans happily lived in primitive tribalistic civilizations until Charlemagne showed up slaughtering saxons until they were enough christianized.

Isn't this a myth? The Vikings for example, had an earnest desire to discover America, hundreds of year before Columbus would try.

[–]Agni777 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (24 children)

India is not worse of at all now that what it was under the British. You might also want to look at British policies that used census to divide Indian society much like what they tried to do in Europe (supporting powers against French, German ….) to create infighting. You might also want to see Indian economy as a percentage of GDP 1) before the period of colonization 2) before Islamic invaders came in

Gandhi and later is what the west wanted to believe are representatives of Indian civilization. You can have them but that’s like saying Obama is the best representative of the western leadership.

There are much longer empires in India far more extensive and longer with more people under them than you might imagine. Take a look at Maurya, Chola, Vijaynagar, Maratha ….

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (23 children)

India is not worse of at all now that what it was under the British.

Millions of Indians have immigrated to Western countries over the past 50 years. How many British (or other White people) have moved to India within the same period after independence?

And based on voting patterns, I've also never seen Indians attempt to stop the mass migration of their own people into Western countries. In Canada & the U.S for example, Indian citizens disproportionately vote for Left or Hard-Left parties who support open borders.

There are much longer empires in India far more extensive and longer with more people under them than you might imagine. Take a look at Maurya, Chola, Vijaynagar, Maratha ….

I'll definitely take a look into those but before I do, I want to make a prediction. The comparisons being made are with civilizations who have simply shown to be the strongest or most technologically powerful throughout history. To India's credit, I'm aware it's an ancient civilization and has perhaps influenced several of its neighbors. But, without feats that's outright match the examples I listed in the OP, I'm willing to bet still comes in a distant 2nd or 3rd place for controlling the world.

For example, Ethiopia is another Brown country that has been around since Ancient times. But just being "old" is not good enough to somehow praise them for being the best. In fact, it does raise several questions such as: why didn't India or Ethiopia join the Age of Exploration and colonize the new world before Europeans did? Or similarly, why didn't India launch Space rockets before Germany, Russia and the U.S did. I'm aware India has a Space Program today... but once again, it doesn't quite mean much if they're still playing catchup instead of outcompeting NASA in Space discovery.

[–]Agni777 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (22 children)

I did mention 3 major immigrations out of India. First the gypsies, second the Caribbean indentured laborers and their the Indians to west in the last 50-100 years. If you consider the third, this group of immigrants is actually the most successful class of India. The reason they move to the west is because of the most aggressive affirmative action policies that are in mandated even in private colleges of India. Do you know who created the classifications for providing affirmative action ? The ex colonizer. Not trying to say India should not own up after many years of independence but the problem is we still have entirely colonial institutions, colonial definitions that describe our society.

A lot of the urban elite class is as western as Manhattan socialite. Mostly due to education and a strong communist influence on history textbooks for the last 70 years or so. The second most influential group that misguides history ? The Catholic Church which is also one of the largest landowners in the country.

Despite all this, if you ask any Indian (including many western elites in the country) if he/she want to live in India pre or post independence ? It would be post independence mostly because the economy has been better (albeit more socialist).

I agree that the Indians who come here turn left in the countries here. But if you remove immigration as an issue, you will find they are far right than an average white man. Indians support legal limited and merit based immigration. If democrats succeed in combining illegal and legal immigration then it results in Indians voting for them for the legal immigration but. If someone makes a disctinctiom between them, as did President Trump, you will see Indians tend to support them.

One more thing is that Indians come here to universities and that’s where they are often indoctrinated into being leftists. Parents are waking up to it now.

I’ll also add that increasing number of Indians tend to go back to India once they get older around late 45-50s. if they stay, it’s only for kids schooling and soon after kids complete schooling they move back. I graduated from a university here and a lot of my classmates alreadywent back.

I understand that position might not be popular here but I dare say that Indian immigration is adding to the talent pool unlike most others.

About the reason why Indian did not conquer the world before, I do not know of any Indian ruler that had an aggressive expansionist foreign policy. To a certain extent, I think that’s common to China too, which also had a strong naval base that could have potentially conquered some bastions or Europe.

My opinion is that the fall of Constantinople and the urge to spread Christianity as a counter weight to Islam spread western civilization across the world. At the time of the age of exploration, India was ruled by Islamic invaders and they were probably more powerful than the ottomans or the European rulers. After their fall, a lot of smaller empires resulted but no one could catch up the industrial strength that Europe built up between 1700 to 1800s.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I did mention 3 major immigrations out of India. First the gypsies, second the Caribbean indentured laborers and their the Indians to west in the last 50-100 years. If you consider the third, this group of immigrants is actually the most successful class of India. The reason they move to the west is because of the most aggressive affirmative action policies that are in mandated even in private colleges of India. Do you know who created the classifications for providing affirmative action ? The ex colonizer. Not trying to say India should not own up after many years of independence but the problem is we still have entirely colonial institutions, colonial definitions that describe our society.

That makes no sense at all. If Indians could oppose the British ruling over them, why would they switch heel and want to live under British rule again in their own island?

This is just another example of the third world being ran by incompetent management. They were given a chance to rebuild on their own, but they rejected it. And if Indians don't even like their own country to actually stay in it, why would anyone trust them to potentially run global politics?

Despite all this, if you ask any Indian (including many western elites in the country) if he/she want to live in India pre or post independence ? It would be post independence mostly because the economy has been better (albeit more socialist).

Then by all means, they should elect a government that calls for the return of all Indians to their homeland. And yes, this is actually a very easy task to achieve. African countries like Ghana throw in incentives for blacks to return, and Israel obviously makes it very easy for Jews to go live there. Although notice in both examples, especially with Africa, the non-whites still find life more comfortable in the West and are hard to please?

I agree that the Indians who come here turn left in the countries here. But if you remove immigration as an issue, you will find they are far right than an average white man. Indians support legal limited and merit based immigration. If democrats succeed in combining illegal and legal immigration then it results in Indians voting for them for the legal immigration but. If someone makes a disctinctiom between them, as did President Trump, you will see Indians tend to support them.

We have more than 20 years of election data. Only White Americans have ever voted for Republicans in mass or majority numbers.

If anything, diversity & multiculturalism has shown us the "myth" of all races coming together and working in unison. Politics is much more fractured when you have to spend huge amounts of money convincing minorities to join your aside, vs a homogenous population that look similar to one another.

One more thing is that Indians come here to universities and that’s where they are often indoctrinated into being leftists. Parents are waking up to it now. I’ll also add that increasing number of Indians tend to go back to India once they get older around late 45-50s. if they stay, it’s only for kids schooling and soon after kids complete schooling they move back. I graduated from a university here and a lot of my classmates alreadywent back. I understand that position might not be popular here but I dare say that Indian immigration is adding to the talent pool unlike most others.

All of this comes at the cost of the host country. Why should any American compete against foreigners for the same jobs, housing, school etc? America (& Europeans in general) have always thrived on their own for thousands of year. If non-whites want the same thing, then be like Japan and actually build those great things on your own. But moving to a White's country, using their services but then claiming "hey buddy, you need us" is very hypocritical. Either that, or admit that colonization was a good thing since the end result is the same (wishing to live next to Whites).

About the reason why Indian did not conquer the world before, I do not know of any Indian ruler that had an aggressive expansionist foreign policy. To a certain extent, I think that’s common to China too, which also had a strong naval base that could have potentially conquered some bastions or Europe. My opinion is that the fall of Constantinople and the urge to spread Christianity as a counter weight to Islam spread western civilization across the world. At the time of the age of exploration, India was ruled by Islamic invaders and they were probably more powerful than the ottomans or the European rulers. After their fall, a lot of smaller empires resulted but no one could catch up the industrial strength that Europe built up between 1700 to 1800s.

China has never successfully won a war against Europeans to my knowledge. More often than not, they were constantly humiliated and forced to sign away land (i.e Hong Kong). If that's the example you're comparing India with, then that is less compelling reason that their empires were actually comparable with Europe in the same time.

[–]Agni777 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

The Indian independence struggle is not alike most others. One might say that British decided to leave India without much political pressure at the time among Indian political parties to do so. Now if you examine the early Indian leadership, and its attitude towards the British, you will see both are entirely sympathetic to britishers. It is something that has changed recently.

I don’t deny the points you make about Indians being politically left in the US. All I’m saying is that Indian immigrants compete better and treat the host society better. And I’ll tell you why as well. Fewer companies recruit immigrants (atleast that was the case in 2010). So unless you have a strong profile for these companies, you likely don’t get a job anywhere in the US. So at college campuses, immigrants from abroad compete at a higher level than their counterparts here. Yes, it sucks for nationals. And I wish too that we had a better quality of government and economy back home. But we don’t.

I’m not supporting any liberal talking point or saying anyone needs us or that Americans wont be as good, I’m saying that the conditions create better candidates among immigrants in college campuses. Don’t believe me? Try going to a college campus and say you have a job and see what are the proportions of quality resumes you get. I’m glad and grateful that America allows people like me here and yes because of people like me from urban India, rural America does not get the opportunity it deserves which I’m sympathetic too. But going back in early career means literally a lot more effort for little gain. I can say that South African whites also suffer the same way due to large affirmative action policies there and it is not politically easy to change it via democracy.

And across history, I’ll say that Unlike China and other defeated/ex colonized countries, Indian historians wants Indians to believe British colonization was not all that bad and Mughals were actually good. Both are trashy points in my opinion. Also Indians (especially Hindus) don’t revolt. There has never been a major revolution that occurred to over throw or kill ex imperialist or colonizers. I consider that’s the reason we see society and government deteriorate to a unusually abysmal levels. Why or how ? I don’t know. But I see something similar in Europe right now.

Overall my point is that colonization was bad and it has Rena ants in todays society which most of society is unaware of. My apologies for digressing from the topic of civilizations.

If you look up the Ming dynasty, the Han and others, they had a better fleet than Columbus did but they for some reason did not explore even New Zealand let alone the New world. Similar with India, the port of Surat had much better ships and knowledge of routes compared to Vasco Da gama but they did not sent it out to Europe.

After 1700s Europes ability to industrialize put it into altogether different orbit. Before that, Europe does not seem to be as great a place to be. Pretty much every century before the 1700s either India or China had the bulk of economic power in the world.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

The Indian independence struggle is not alike most others. One might say that British decided to leave India without much political pressure at the time among Indian political parties to do so. Now if you examine the early Indian leadership, and its attitude towards the British, you will see both are entirely sympathetic to britishers. It is something that has changed recently.

Canada is a former British colony that has always been sympathetic to Britain. America was the complete opposite, and kicked them out. Yet hundreds of years later, why does both Canada & America seem to independently run fine?

It has very little to do with where their loyalties are. It will always come down to competent leaders who know what they are doing.

I don’t deny the points you make about Indians being politically left in the US. All I’m saying is that Indian immigrants compete better and treat the host society better. And I’ll tell you why as well. Fewer companies recruit immigrants (atleast that was the case in 2010). So unless you have a strong profile for these companies, you likely don’t get a job anywhere in the US. So at college campuses, immigrants from abroad compete at a higher level than their counterparts here. Yes, it sucks for nationals. And I wish too that we had a better quality of government and economy back home. But we don’t.

So how do you think Indians would have reacted to the very first U.S law? The one that said citizenship was originally exclusive to Whites only?

https://immigrationhistory.org/item/1790-nationality-act/

Or the numerous 20th century legislature that also called for reducing Asian immigration in favor of more Europeans?

As long as multiculturalism exists, the very fabric of what makes a country unique, begins to disappear. We can't pretend to call America the same country, if Whites become 40% of the population or less. It will inevitably look like every other third world nation that has a brown majority.

I’m not supporting any liberal talking point or saying anyone needs us or that Americans wont be as good, I’m saying that the conditions create better candidates among immigrants in college campuses. Don’t believe me? Try going to a college campus and say you have a job and see what are the proportions of quality resumes you get. I’m glad and grateful that America allows people like me here and yes because of people like me from urban India, rural America does not get the opportunity it deserves which I’m sympathetic too. But going back in early career means literally a lot more effort for little gain.

From a moral standpoint, Indians living with other Indians keep their identity. Just like how Whites living with other Whites are seen as family.

But what happens when you try and mix families? It leads to competition, lack of social trust, or worse, just conflict.

That will always be the defining feature of race realism. We can never expect different races to be happy with each other when they live in the same society. Biology tells us that a White person will see an Indian person and know right away he's different. This is also confirmed when we look at patterns for where each group lives. Indians will live in Indian enclaves, and Whites will always want to live next to white neighbors.

Overall my point is that colonization was bad and it has Rena ants in todays society which most of society is unaware of. My apologies for digressing from the topic of civilizations. If you look up the Ming dynasty, the Han and others, they had a better fleet than Columbus did but they for some reason did not explore even New Zealand let alone the New world. Similar with India, the port of Surat had much better ships and knowledge of routes compared to Vasco Da gama but they did not sent it out to Europe. After 1700s Europes ability to industrialize put it into altogether different orbit. Before that, Europe does not seem to be as great a place to be. Pretty much every century before the 1700s either India or China had the bill of economic power in the world.

If China & India had more money Europe, but they still didn't use it explore the world or put themselves ahead technologically speaking, then it confirms my theory that they were not fit to be one day seen as global leaders.

It's like for example, if you gave a random homeless person $1 million dollars, he's now richer than a lot of people. But, if the homeless guy only uses his wealth to buy alcohol and drugs with it, then he's no better off than when he was living on the streets.

Now apply this logic for world history. If Europeans were already building libraries, discovering scientific theories or inventing the capitalist system when they were dirt poor, imagine what they could have done when they became super rich, centuries later? It means the rest of the world is now very far behind them.

[–]Agni777 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

I’ll leave my points of discussion about immigration you made. I understand race realism. I see it as a something like religious realism, which I believe is important. Just as not all religions are equally good or bad, not all peoples are either.

If Constantinople had not fallen, I doubt either Columbus or Vasco Da gama would undertake the voyages they did. Both were trying to 2 things (1) find Allies for the church and (2) fund gold that Marco Polo had written about 2 centuries ago.

You are seeing history in a linear way. Many older libraries snd scientific accomplishments theories can be found in India, egypt, native America ….even the pre Christian Europe that were later destroyed. That one is now seen as a success, does not imply they were always successful or that they will be.

Richer countries often throw away the advantage they have while poorer countries, partially forced by the situation create a lot more ingenious things.

It was true that Europe used its ships better than more technically advanced naval powers. And after industrialization it was in a entirely different power status.

I’m glad that India did not try to be global world leader. It had the sense of improving society back home when it was the chief world power. Universalist, globe conquests may make great inspiring histories but they often come at a cost of a lot of internal rot.

[–]Agni777 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Oh and the laws you mention, Indians were not classified as asians by race. They were often referred to as Hindoos. Many courts opined that several groups of Hindus were similar to Caucasians. This changed in early 20th century when many more Indians came in.

The Asian act was meant for the Chinese or at that time the “Mongloid”

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

I’ll leave my points of discussion about immigration you made. I understand race realism. I see it as a something like religious realism, which I believe is important. Just as not all religions are equally good or bad, not all peoples are either.

Contrary to what the media says, many race realists are still comfortable interacting with people who are different from them.

I would even argue that very few of them are actually "hateful". What they want, and what everyone should want, is for racial separation.

And I'm aware of the arguments that say "but our countries are poor, we just want a better life". What you're really looking for is Eugenics. If India or Africa seriously put forth a national policy that only high IQ members of society could reproduce, all the issues of "poverty" would disappear over night.

If Constantinople had not fallen, I doubt either Columbus or Vasco Da gama would undertake the voyages they did. Both were trying to 2 things (1) find Allies for the church and (2) fund gold that Marco Polo had written about 2 centuries ago.

The Vikings had already sailed to America before Columbus did. The Roman Empire was also in the process of exploring Africa or moving into Asia as well.

You are seeing history in a linear way. Many older libraries snd scientific accomplishments theories can be found in India, egypt, native America ….even the pre Christian Europe that were later destroyed. That one is now seen as a success, does not imply they were always successful or that they will be.

True, but then it's a pattern of watching how these nations continue to build themselves up again. The Soviets inflicted a huge amount of damage on Eastern Europe, yet after the fall of communism, Poland or Lithuania have rapidly caught up with their Western neighbors.

Richer countries often throw away the advantage they have while poorer countries, partially forced by the situation create a lot more ingenious things.

Examine Europe and other Western Countries today, that is clearly not true. Microsoft, Tesla, Amazon, Apple, Disney etc are leaders of innovation, yet which countries do we find them in?

I’m glad that India did not try to be global world leader. It had the sense of improving society back home when it was the chief world power. Universalist, globe conquests may make great inspiring histories but they often come at a cost of a lot of internal rot.

There will always be a country who wants to be #1 in history. Simply because having access to more resources, money and even land itself is valuable for human development.

[–]Agni777 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

About IQ, all modern societies have disincentivized high IQ reproduction. People of high IQ are incentived to get a career than family. Additionally, I doubt it is an entirely genetic thing. There are factors like early child development that might be a significant player in IQ determination. The early Jews that came to the US were much lower than average Americans but later on were able to beat the same numbers.

And we’re there people before Vikings in America ? Where do you think they came from ? Theory is that the ASEAN people also had ships that allowed them to find South America. When I consider how Western Europe lost its way, i feel the Roman’s were the first to try and interact with foreign cultures as potential equals in law. The idea of romanizing of other groups by staggering benefits of citizenship to very different peoples is the first time when a ruling class disregarded the native traditions for an expansionist policy. Christianity used a similar playbook and erased a lot of European traditions. This helped fight Islam as a united force but I doubt Islam would ever exist had it not been for Christian take over of rome.

The strength of the dollar and significant infra investment by universities and government is a significant reason why Americas middle could create companies that create produce innovators. If you look at leadership of most of these companies, you might see a disproportionate representation of one non white peoples. I don’t take it as a point, but race realism is also a nuanced concept and you are painting too broadly with large assumptions.

Lastly, I don’t think I believe the media or even academicians without examining their agenda. That’s how I find myself here and I don’t think I suspected you or anyone of hate. Convienient Bias, yes, but not hate.

Before you believe the ideas similar to manifest destiny, Monroe doctrine or inherent whites being better, you might want to see history more and examine the biases of people who told you of that too.