[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/his/ - History & Humanities


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



I'd like to have a thread where we discuss things the mainstream would generally not allow to be discussed. Namely the following;

>Women being equal to men
Men have been the gender to invent, discover and build most of that that has been invented, discovered or built, why?
If the answer is "men oppressed women", how have women allowed themselves to be oppressed? Doesn't that show they are inherently not equal?

>Uneven historical achievements
Left alone for hundreds or thousands of years indigenous peoples have not made civilisations in any way comparable the West, why not? Africans, native Americans, island peoples, aboriginal Australians, sub saharan Africans all had the same amount of time throughout history as the rest of us but as the Greeks, Egyptians, Roman's and so on had civilisations, the aforementioned had nothing comparable in scale.

This isn't supposed to be inflammatory, it's an area of history and understanding of humanity that I struggle with.
>>
>>7226036
>Doesn't that show they are inherently not equal?
well I guess all those jews exterminated in the holocaust really were lesser than the supreme Aryan race
hitler was right after all

>the aforementioned had nothing comparable in scale
how do you choose to compare the peoples?
in connectivity and networking, indigenous peoples were pretty much always comparable to Europeans/Asians
population, same story although the new world had less in an absolute sense (in a relative sense, the populations were comparable as well).
culture: indigenous peoples in America had a very vibrant culture and left many colossal structures akin to those of the Egyptians or Greeks pretty much all over the place. Africans were very vibrant as well, particularly in Mali, Zimbabwe, and so on.
(Also, native americans technically could only settle much later than old-worlders, seeing as they had to trek from Africa all the way into siberia and across the bering strait)

are these uncomfortable historical "truths", or is the fact that these are all entirely subjective and generally unfounded an uncomfortable truth for you?
>muh mainstream would generally "not allow" this to be discussed
fuck off /pol/
>>
>>7226220
>hitler was right after all
oy vey
>>
>>7226036
Dont compare indios to savage africans and abos.
>>
>Women
The phrase "Women think different from Men" sums it up.

>Uneven achievements
They didn't had the same time as the others, under the hypothesis they arrived at North America some 30.000 years ago and South America around 15.000-20.000 years ago. They also had very different goals, as to survive in the jungle =/= surviving in the steppe/cold forest/fertile plains.
I have a very negative bias against native africans and australians, but for the Central America natives, they managed to develop a highly sophisticated calendar, irrigation systems short of terraforming, developed new non-cereal crops from scratch and could sucefully perform surgery without anesthesia or iron, maybe even metal tools (don't quite remember which). I believe this absense of easy-to-acquire hard metals was their only limiting factor.
>>
>>7226036
>Left alone for hundreds or thousands of years indigenous peoples have not made civilisations in any way comparable the West, why not? Africans, native Americans, island peoples, aboriginal Australians, sub saharan Africans all had the same amount of time throughout history as the rest of us but as the Greeks, Egyptians, Roman's and so on had civilisations, the aforementioned had nothing comparable in scale.
Probably the same reason the Nordics and Britons had nothing comparable until the southern Europeans brought them civilization. The Greeks and Egyptians were located near other cradles of civilization with whom they could exchange ideas and goods. Who knows what the Incas would have accomplished if they had someone of equal stature to trade with.
>>
>>7226220
This entire comment is beyond dumb, I'm not OP but holy fuck this is the people I share a board with. Easily triggered leftists are the worst and I say this as a leftist. Why dont you try addressing his points instead of going HITLER /POL/ HITLER /POL/ because some of your trigger words got mentioned? The part about how his points regarding women and African civilisations ect not being able to be discussed in public, well that's because of people like you who react badly to it. You literally proved that point for him.
>>
>>7226292
>Why dont you try addressing his points
He did
>Easily triggered leftists
Why are you making this about politics?
>The part about how his points regarding women and African civilisations ect not being able to be discussed in public
We discussed the root causes of gender and racial inequality extensively in college. They’re perfectly acceptable things to discuss if you’re not an incel who’s going to screech about your own racial superiority.
>>
File: 1525711869472.jpg (58 KB, 600x600)
58 KB
58 KB JPG
>>7226292
did you literally not read 95% of my reply? you know, all the parts where I disprove OPs arguments?
but okay, i'll just explain my arguments to you since you're apparently too retarded to read

I brought up hitler not because I made a connection between OP and him, but because the jews are the most easily and widely known example of an oppressed people. I said the sarcastic remark to show how dumb his argument was about oppression always being due to inherent differences in "power".
You didn't even touch upon the second part of my counter-argument so good job on you.

generally speaking, only /pol/ (or /leftypol/, but they usually don't make the points made by OP, so easy elimination there) victimizes itself heavily by saying "FACTS DON'T GET DISCUSSED BY THE MSM" "MSM ARE LIARS AND FUCK US ALL IN THE ASS" and so on and so on
so don't mind me for being a bit irritated at seeing that dumb statement that really is overdone at this point. who gives a fuck about the MSM except your grandparents who are too old to realize netflix exists?

now please point out to me where I was triggered. If anything, it's you that's being a faggot and ruining this board by crying out "LOL TRIGGERED LEFTISTS RUINS ANOTHER DISCUSSION LOL" and consequently adding nothing to the discussion
fuck off /pol/
>>
>>7226335
Sex inequality is nature, women are nurturing incubators while men do everything else end of story. If a cunt wants to not be an incubator she needs to be beaten until she agrees.
>>
>>7226292
Yet he still adressed a few of these points while you just bashed him up without contributing anything.
>but africans are low iq shit tier
That is due to their geographical area and they managed to create civilizations that prospered while not at the same level as their counterparts.
They suffered from the fact that they could not grow much food as the soil was infertile.
The climate was harsh on them and the lack of water made agriculture even harder.

>muh womeen are inferior
Because they didnt need to do anything .
Men had to strive in earlier times to capture prey so they could provide for themselves , later on a good ethic was seen as attractive due to the fact that they could provide a better life .
Women are physically weak so hunting or hard labor was not something they would have to do , due to this they didnt need to have risk taking abilieties or initiative as they could prove a big danger for them .
It would be a massive pain in the ass if you were a woman and had your period while on a hunting trip or in a warzone (we can see today as a lot of woman soldiers suffer from this because there are not hygienic conditions).
While woman are inferior to men when talking about initiative (which is a big factor ) and their physical ability they have a better memory when it comes to facial expressions and they are more patient than men due to their lack of testosterone, and in other departments such as creativity are the same as men.
>>
>>7226036
>Uncomfortable historical truths
It really isn't truth as much as
>LOOK AT HOW SUPERIOR I AM, GOSH
>>
>>7226344
Have sex
>>
>>7226354
>they have a better memory when it comes to facial expressions and they are more patient than men
No
>more creative
Holy shit just kill yourself
>>
>>7226357
For me a better uncomftable "truth" is that everyonce in a while is that history and many other scientific studies can only be proven by a few people, some history could have easily been made up and the fact that we constantly have revisions in certian subjects is quite off, another thing is that you will never truly see such events and it will just be words on a paper. But I will finish this off with the fact that I think people who go
>NO REAL HISTORY, ALL MADE UP, NO WAY DIDN'T HAPPEN
are the human form of a virus
>>
>>7226378
>no arguments
>I should kill myself
I would provide sources for this but you are too dumb for a conversation .
>>
>>7226400
How could you say women are more creative when everything was invented by men?

How can you say women are patient than men when they mentally break down easier?
>>
File: failing-grade-m.jpg (29 KB, 653x398)
29 KB
29 KB JPG
>>7226378
great arguments mate
>No
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000169181000140X
>more creative
you literally can't even read to the end of a sentence, holy fucking shit
and then you tell others to kill themselves
>>
>>7226404
>no counterargument
>just repeat his argument with a few letters capitalized and a bit more punctuation, and maybe a bit less verbosity, that'll prove him wrong!
man, great job at writing so much while saying so little, you really broke ground here with putting as little substance in a piece of text as possible!
>>
>>7226411
I guess you didnt read anything off my post but let me elaborate.
Women didnt have the need to prove themselves in anything other than cooking and being a good wife and science and research doesnt go in to that kind of category .
Men were the extreme majority in higher education because a woman didnt need to partake into that thing to have a future.
All of these things lead to society to make men affirm themselves and carve their own future while making women just to be good wifes.
They were more creative and patient due to evolution and the lack of testosterone which is an impulsive hormone (exp roid rage) thus making them less impulsive and more patient as a result.
As for being creative they evolved that way , while we can focus better they can multitask better , this is just an example of different paths we took because we had different environments to affirm .
>>
>>7226335
>We discussed the root causes of gender and racial inequality extensively in college

What were the main takeaways?
>>
>>7226036
For the vast, vast majority of history, women died in droves during childbirth. Almost every pre-industrial mixed gender cemetary you'd care to analyze has the average age of the of the ladies much younger than the average age of the men. Far shortened lifespan makes it hard to accomplish things, and what's worse, is that as soon as the cultural zeitgeist realizes that women die young, it tends to come up with reasons to avoid investing a lot of human capital in your women; after all, they're just probably going to die anyway after pushing out the 6th or so baby.
>>
>>7226404
Hooo boy,
guess I need to elaborate on my arguments for the second time in this thread since it apparently is too hard for /pol/fags to even have basic reading comprehension

>hitler was right after all
yep, you didn't disprove the first part of my argument at all. oh, but it's just a joke so LOL FUNNY HAHA who gives a fuck about discussion if you can just put MEMES and ruin this board?

>You fucking idiot sandwich
you still haven't told me by which parameter you analyze one civilization to be "better" than another, you've just repeated my argument, made it SEEM stupid by adding a bunch of fluff, but never really disproved it
here, let me follow suit

>h-haha lol your argument s-sucks! go back to muh reddit because they're dumb over there, not like over here we're the smart kids of the internet!

but anyway I'll just address your """"arguments"""" seriously even though they don't deserve it
>twist the comparison parameters
what fucking comparison parameters? Can you really not read the first words of that argument?
>vague things like connectivity and its synonym networking
connectivity, as in individual relationships, long-distance communication
networking, as in greater trade networks, communication networks
>semantics and buzzords
I think you need to look up the definition of "buzzword"
I mean, how the fuck is "indigenous" a buzzword lmao?
besides though, I could only describe culture in such vague ways because OP chose to do so in his arguments
>I can say that all cultures are better or equal that uhwities
I actually said old-worlders, not specifically "uhwities", but hey reading is for nerds
>muh spiritualism
well now you're just acting like a schizo. where did I say anything about spiritualism?
1/2
>>
>>7226220
>>Doesn't that show they are inherently not equal?
>well I guess all those jews exterminated in the holocaust really were lesser than the supreme Aryan race
>hitler was right after all

How have you jumped from op saying "most inventions have been done by men" to suddenly comparing women to Jews in the holocaust?

Jews were held in camps, worked as slave labour, gassed and shot systematically by an oppressive regime that hated them. When have women suffered anything in comparison to that? Look at Jews now, they have their own homeland and a very developed and technologically advanced one at that. Jews being persecuted wasn't a result of racial inferiority but just a result of settling as a minority in a country that decided to exterminate them.

Women haven't achieved anything of significance in comparison to men from the very day we evolved to walk upright to the the present day. You cant say there is not some nature involved there. Especially when it occurred worldwide, in cultures that had no contact with one another.
>>
File: 1567849217572.jpg (36 KB, 500x500)
36 KB
36 KB JPG
>>7226036
>I'd like to have a thread where we discuss things the mainstream would generally not allow to be discussed.
Yeah, yeah, nice and all but we have this thread multiple times daily. Fuck's left to discuss?
>>
>>7226220
>Africans were very vibrant as well, particularly in Mali, Zimbabwe, and so on.
>(Also, native americans technically could only settle much later than old-worlders, seeing as they had to trek from Africa all the way into siberia and across the bering strait)

Vibrant? An odd word choice, probably chosen because its vague and difficult to quantify.

Saying they arent as developed because they had to walk the furthest is a weak argument. Plenty of peoples walked further and set up what would become advanced civilisations with large histories ie Japan.
>>
>>7226036
>Women being equal to men
Patriarchal societies are fundamentally male-centric. If civilizations didn't develop patriarchy, women would have achieved everything.

>Uneven historical achievements
It's geographical, it's not anyone's fault.
Native Americans got a late start, but still did pretty well considering.
>Africans, native Americans, island peoples, aboriginal Australians, sub saharan Africans
You said Africans twice, but there were civilizations in Africa. Egypt, Ethiopia, Carthage, not to mention Mali and others in West Africa. Island life doesn't require, nor can it support civilization. Kind of the same goes for aboriginal Australians.
>>
>>7226404
>>7226512
2/2
>because they had to walk a lot ok?
Okay I guess I gotta elaborate on this, sorry for assuming people on this board, discussing this subject to have at least some remote knowledge on the generally accepted ideas on the why's and hows
To summarize:
>humans live a non-sedentary nomadic lifestyle due to colder climates turning most latitudes into tundra- or steppe-like environments
>certain group of peoples go to siberia, while others remain around the fertile crescent/mediterranean/SEA
>this certain group of peoples is forced to remain in the nomadic lifestyle because they are in colder climates, while things are heating up a bit around the equator (in the aforementioned areas)
>crescent/med/SEA peoples are accustoming to their local environment, and long-range transportation is less necessary due to higher fertility rates
>meanwhile, in siberia the climate is still shit, so a part of the proto-amerindians cross the bering strait because why not
>(side note, they may have done this with boats along the coast)
>so while crescent/med/SEA peoples were slowly getting into a sedentary lifestyle, archaic pre-clovis indians were still barely on the continent that was entirely alien to them
>to use a model of equilibrium, the crescent/med/SEA peoples were in an environment allowing the settling into a total equilibrium (in the late palaeolithic), while archaic indians were still forced to remain hunter-gatherers due to an unknown environment and still being much more accustomed to a non-sedentary lifestyle
please note that this is a very overgeneralized summary and leaves a lot of complex stuff out, but it highlights the important bits
>>
>>7226540
>If civilizations didn't develop patriarchy

But why did civilisations develop patriarchy? A question I never see discussed or answered.
>>
>>7226517
it's an extreme example which you have apparently misunderstood

my point was to disprove that people come to be in such states of oppression because they are "inherently" less powerful
in reality, the Jews did not allow themselves to be rounded up because they were lesser than the Germans, but because of systematic singling out, propaganda, misinformation, and so on

I honestly can't be arsed to disprove the rest of your argument since I've been in this thread for at least an hour now, but will leave a source for whoever wants to use it

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/348/6236/796
>>
>>7226447
>society
>not genetic
>>
>>7226540
>Patriarchal societies are fundamentally male-centric. If civilizations didn't develop patriarchy, women would have achieved everything.
Women cannot compete with men its simply reality you egalitarian lunatic.
>>
>>7226220
Cringe butthurt brainlet
>>
>>7226292
Based
>>
File: 153027.jpg (43 KB, 480x368)
43 KB
43 KB JPG
>>7226220
>well I guess all those jews exterminated in the holocaust really were lesser than the supreme Aryan race
terrible fucking comparison
>>
>>7226497
>For the vast, vast majority of history, women died in droves during childbirth.
Demonstrably and obviously false. It was quite low even with higher birth rates.
But of course, that won't stop the fuckwit feminist from making up sob stories.
>>
>>7226344
This is the only factual argument in this thread.
>>
File: 1565239430902.jpg (69 KB, 929x1024)
69 KB
69 KB JPG
>>7226220
>well I guess all those jews exterminated in the holocaust really were lesser than the supreme Aryan race
Can you really say that when the average NEETSoc seethes about being owned by Jews decades later?
>>
>>7229127
They don't believe in the holocaust you fool
Neither do i but it's true that they don't understand how the world works and how full of propaganda was the third reich and their innumerable fuck ups.
I also detest jews mostly due to their hypocrisy but i wouldn't go far as to believe they are behind everything bad that has happened in history.
>>
>>7226036
Gayreeks actually weren't gay and they used to kill homosexuals.
>muh gay pots
there is more gayness for lack of a better term in the form of pron and sexuality in Afghanistan than there was in ancient Greece, just consider for a moment if it is reasonable to assume Afghans are gay-friendly in any way
>>
>>7226220
>jews were inferior
your words not mine
>indigenous peoples
retard detected
>comparable
yes, the stack of Aboriginal rocks are comparable to the Pyramids of Central America, Egypt, or the Cathedrals.
>American natives did some neat things
a handful of people did neat things, Nahuatls and Aztlans are among them, they possessed large amounts of Basal admixture.
>Mali
a stagnant embarrasment
>Zimbabwe
literally a pile of rocks
>and so on
such as?
You realize Malians arent all Africans right? YOu cant defend Koisan by pointing to Aethiopians.
>Siberian Americans went from Africa to the Americas
what?
West Europeans had a longer trek from Eurasia to Ireland than Natives had from Siberia to North America
Europeans and Natives both are from Malta Buret
>uncomfortable historical truths
not really truths at all when put under the scope
>/pol/ rent free
>>
>>7226341
>Jews are oppressed
>with their total media control, soveriegn nation with the biggest brute in their pocket, millions of dollars in the hands of ethnically interested Jews
yes, very terrible circumstances beset them

>counter argument
you didnt make an argument, you listed things off and expected people to find contradictions with your post and their own opinions.
Thats how women argue
>who cares about what is being shoved onto everyone all the time inescapably
sane people?

You are clearly upset about something, your posts strike me as vaguely angry at Europeans in particular.

rent free
>>
>>7226354
>low IQ is due to the environment
not really, its due to the ease in which they came about as a population.
>suffered from the fact they could not grow much food and their soil was infertile
uhhhhhhh... the most inhospitable and infertile place in the Northern Hemisphere was the origin of wheeled vehicles and metal weapons.

If anything having such a problem only generates solutions and thus stimulates learning and selects for intellect and progress
>lack of water
Africans dont have a lack of water, if you mean why do they need water today, why cant they move toward where the water is?

>managed to create civilizations
who?
'Africans' is not a group
do you mean East Africans? Bantu? Koi? Pygmy?
Who?

>women are inferior because they didnt need to do anything
right so women are inferior, you arent going to undo millions of years of evolution with a college education.
>creativity
>same as men
laughable
>>
>>7226357
so uncomfortable, but also true
>>
>>7226036
>>Women being equal to men
>Men have been the gender to invent, discover and build most of that that has been invented, discovered or built, why?
>If the answer is "men oppressed women", how have women allowed themselves to be oppressed? Doesn't that show they are inherently not equal?
>>7226803
>>7227663
>>
>>7226540
>Patriarchal societies are fundamentally male-centric. If civilizations didn't develop patriarchy, women would have achieved everything.
do you have any proof for this statement at all?
You assume male dominance is created by patriarchy rather than male dominance creating patriarchy
Thats like saying "This army won the battle thus the victory caused this army to be superior" rather than saying "This army was stronger and thus won"

>its geographical
Geography creates genetics. So yes, it is, and that is why we should have strict divisions because you cant change genetics as easily as you can change geography.

Also do you have any evidence its geographical?
>Native Americans got a late start
actually they got an early start, they were just stagnate in their version of the bronze age.
>did pretty well
Dont see any of them on the moon
>Civilizations in Africa
Run by whom?
'African' is not a race.
Do you mean Bantu, Khoi, pygmy, East African, Capoid? Who had these civilizations?
>island life doesnt require nor can it support civilization
except it can and did in the case of the British isles....
Also one could consider the Polynesians particularly successful considering their "continent" is 99,99% water
>Aboriginal Australians
loads of coastal resources, yet they did nothing, even today they have access to everything, yet do nothing.
Its not things or places, its people
>>
>>7229492
>loads of coastal resources, yet they did nothing, even today they have access to everything, yet do nothing.
>Its not things or places, its people

If you were a chief of a tribe of an island with no real threat to worry about, and plenty of food, drink and women, you wouldn't have the bent mindset to ruin the island in order to scrounge resources to trade to ????? in order to buy ?????, and you wouldn't enslave your people in little workshops either, because they wouldn't like that very much.
>>
>>7226036
I don't think you understand how oppression works, anon.
I imagine that not only are you white and male but you probably haven't actually looked into the idea(not that the huge red flag but if you're ignorant of the topic plus you've never experienced it, of course you'd be confused).
People oppress systematically. They set up/propagate power structures
Laws, social norms, and even psychological manipulation to keep the underclass well...under.
In the case of gender specifically, it's not so hard given men and women within any group, need each other to survive/continue themselves(genes) and the species.
An easier way for me to break this down for you is perhaps looking at the relationship between the serf/peasant and low ranking nobles to high nobles in medieval times, esp in places like(but not limited to) Japan. The system is set up such that only a hand full of people can have wealth and power.
First of all, a lot of titles, particularly the most prestigious ones, are hereditary so if you're a peasant, the chances of ever becoming a lord, let alone a king are nearly 0.
2nd there are literal cut offs on certain extravagances or displays of wealth for things like number of courses people of a particular rank could have at court, the types of clothes the were allowed to wear etc arbitrarily set by the person with the most power.
3rd, there are social rules and biases established about what is appropriate or more aesthetic by the people in power. The people with less power are left to the whims of the people above them as they desperately try to fit in, an be seen as acceptable, often spending money that they don't have, or that is definitely least than the people with the most power.
If they can't well, them there is no way the will be accepted;they will be looks down upon or unable to enter those circles of power. The people in power can also pull the former example which in that case, they don't have a chance.
(Continued)
>>
>>7226036
>>7226292
(Continued)
4th the system itself is a catch 22: you're a peasant who wants to win spoils from the upcoming war, but you need money for good weapons, armor, and a horse to have a high chance of actually surviving the war to actually win the spoils.
Hope that helps. Was I civil enough for you, anon?
>>
>>7229709
>>7229703
I may agree with a large portion of what you said, but dude fuck off.

what did the OP say?
>>7226036
>This isn't supposed to be inflammatory, it's an area of history and understanding of humanity that I struggle with.
>>7226036
>I'd like to have a thread where we discuss things the mainstream would generally not allow to be discussed.

You said,
>>7229703
>I don't think you understand how oppression works, anon.
>I imagine that not only are you white and male but you probably haven't actually looked into the idea

You mind polluter.

NOT TO MENTION you didn't address 'anything' that was asked.

>>7229709
>Was I civil enough for you, anon?

No. Spectacular fail.
>>
>>7229492
Why do brainlets(often with no knowledge of physics or astronomy themselves) make the claim that going to the moon(a useless endeavor at the en of the day that only allowed physicist to live off of government funding given the moon is is an empty rock)?
I'm sure you'll say something cheesy like: its the PRINCIPLE or "it's an example of humans going against nature just cause the can" (you'll say all this, while unironically, claiming that all of the accomplishments achieved by men was due to competition for pussy).
The truth of the matter is, NASA is full of academics that rely heavily on government funding like most researchers, just to satiate their curiosity and interests. The same thing that happens with most other Academia
Perhaps less so in sociology or biology because at least you can argue their research can help us solve problems actually afflicting people on this planet.
Now, I don't mind the pursuit of knowledge for knowledge's sake and I appreciate academia but let's be real here:
If you really want to talk about what makes an advanced civilization, the most impressive bench mark should be the ability to have advance medicine and recreate biological processes perfectly or near perfectly.
Anyway, i just had to get that off my chest.

I don't think human worth or value comes from the relative grandiosity of their accomplishments. Humans themselves(their perspectives and experences)are just pretty interesting to me.
>>
>>7229610
>chief of a tribe of an island with no real threat
by its very nature islands create violent men
>plenty of food and women
source? Food and women were scarce for these people also Australia isnt an island as much as it is a huge landmass.
>ruin the island by making it better
what lol?
>in order to trade
who said anything about trading? You could always trade with, you know, the guys a thousand miles away who are still on your fucking ''''''''Island'''''''
>in order to buy
weapons, trinkets, women, slaves, anything you can think of
>you wouldnt enslave people
why not?
>they wouldnt like it
didnt stop anyone else either lol
>workshops
non-existent anyway :)
>>
>>7229809
>NASA are brainlets
yeah ok
>going to the moon is pointless
how so? It is an achievement, at the end of the day you can say anything beyond immediate hunter gatherer tier actions are pointless by reducing everything to "meaingful" biological motives.
Listen man, men like to go on adventures, the moon was the biggest adventure undertaken ever.
>while unironically claiming all achievments are done for women
they aren't? I dont say that and no one here is lol. Men do things because they like them, sometimes its for women and sometimes not.
Going to the moon was cool as fuck and men of Northern European extraction did it first.
>government funding
yeah, white, Northern European descended, one might even say Saxon-styled governments.
>academics
Nordics.
>value doesnt come grandiosity of achievement
who cares?
99% of people think it does. dont argue with me argue with human nature
>>
>>7229703
>white males dont face oppression
They are the most oppressed group there is, I know its a boomer talking point but you look at how non-whites are portrayed and blacks especially, they are put on a pedestal as impossibly noble, heroic, and perfect in every way.
>people oppress systematically
source? Oppression can be one large man beating down a smaller man.
>power structures
no such thing as a power structure people are individuals remember ;)
>keep the underclass under
Except the underclass consistently rose up in Europe.
non-Europeans did not, stop this class struggle bullshit we all can see which """"class"""" is the hardest to suppress and keep down.
Instead of championing the only people who can rise youd rather wax over those who couldnt rise if they started at the top.
so shut the fuck up youre just anti white.
>japan
who cares? Thats not representative of women

>class
>struggle
>power
>oppression
You just kind of threw things around and pointed to times and places (nothing concrete I might add) where these things vaguely fit if you have a loose definition.
What is wrong with you? OP was tlaking about womens oppression alleged oppression
>>
>>7229843
>>ruin the island by making it better
>what lol?

fair points made but not this one.

gods above, look at the pollution and the wreckage caused by industry and resource mining.

"ruin the island by making it better" dumb dumb dumb
>>
>>7229802
>I may agree with a large portion of what you said, but fuck off
Lol what? Is that how you have a discussion? The definitely wasn't civil.
>you didn't answer any of the questions
I did address your questions, anon.
I just answered it in a way that you don't like which doesn't make sense because that's not how debate works, anon. You just want a huge echo chamber is what you're asking for.
"I want a discussion completely free of all mainstream ideas." Meaning, by your own admission, "only my or other fringe ideas are allowed." This is basically what you're saying. Yet you call ME the mind polluter. How childish. You are actively obstructing rational discourse and even total freedom of speech that you are supposedly trying to promote with that restriction. Somehow you think it is completely justified, and you'll say that meanwhile mocking other liberal who do that.
I decided to address your post starting with what seems to me a fundamental misunderstanding of "oppression" You seem to think that it's always the equivalent of going to the store down the street because get better deals.
You don't consider what happens when the store isn't down the street but in another town an hour a way and you have no car. At the same time you can't take the bus because by the time you get off of work that that you can't seem to take the day off of because you need to money, the last bus that you can easily access that takes you to said town stops running and its super late in the dangerous neighborhood that you could actually afford to live in. This example isn't quite what I mean by oppression itself but more so systemic factors.
I even used a more historical example, keeping with the theme of this board. if your reactionary "tldr" brain could be more patient, you would have seen, but such is life on the internet I guess.
If it seems like I'm talking down to you, it's just that you make it hard not to.
>>
>>7229893
how in the fuck is an Abo hunter gatherer society going to pollute anything at all?
How the fuck is any pre-industrial society going to pollute?
Fuck that how is any educated industrial society (Europe) going to pollute?
>>
>>7229896
such a pretentious self satisfied idiot.
go back to being an incel somewhere else
>>
>>7229859
Goodness, you're such a brainlet. I don't even want to talk to you anymore.
Who the fuck was saying NASA is full if brainlets? They are all more intelligent than you by miles. It is ONLY YOU and people like you who are the brainlets.
>>
>>7229859
>Listen man, men like to go on adventures, the moon was the biggest adventure undertaken ever
Called it. Man what a cornball
>>
>>7229464
Not him, but Jesus Christ are you a retard. He was talking about the Jews in Nazi Germany, where they clearly were oppressed, whether or not they're oppressed in other places and times is irrelevant.
>>
>>7229896
Oh shut up. You're just making long irrelevant speeches. Take medication.
>>
>>7229902
AGREED.
>>
>>7229899
>Fuck that how is any educated industrial society (Europe) going to pollute?

That's such a subtle joke, anon, I didn't even notice it at first.
>>
>>7229896
You're literally talkign garbage to yourself.

I'm not just saying that. Read your responses to the OP, they have NOTHING. TO. DO. with the subject ..not even a little bit!

look,
>>7229703
>>7229709

nothing whatsoever related to either of the topics he/she stated. nothing what so ever.

you're literally making a speech to an empty room.
>>
File: braintlet.jpg (8 KB, 442x500)
8 KB
8 KB JPG
>>7229904
>you are a brainlet because you think NASA is smart and going to the moon is an achievement
>>
>>7229911
So wheres the problem?
You are trying to evaporate European supremacy by stating things Europeans did are in your OPINION non-achievements
>>
>>7229915
more people have gone through worse for longer
using teh jews as an example is just poorly thought out
>>
>>7226036
I'm an indigenous person, I acknowledge all of this is fact and I have no bad blood with the west
>>
File: gays not welocme.jpg (10 KB, 204x247)
10 KB
10 KB JPG
>Have good thread idea
>Have it get shat on by /leftypol/
just fucking why
>>
>>7226220
>>7226220
You need to stop this shit anon. You ruin any meaningful dialogue by going > le pol fuck off xD
>>
>>7229879
Whites as a group are not oppressed: not systemically, socially, or financially. No vitriole from small groups and fringe blacks saying they hate whites will make that true.
What does it really do to you when a ignorant likely poor black woman with a barely high school education working at Walmart gives you attitude as you walk away to your car to drive home to your likely suburb after coming from your likely 80k a year job?
Well "you" is probably inaccurate in this case since "you're" likely an NEET like most of the pathetic population that is 4 chan but I'm simply illustrating a point about normal whites as group.
Beauty standards are white. In these white countries, cultural standard is white. Quit complaining.
Back to my point though:
I wasn't using Japan as only a representative of women, idiot. I'm talking about class in general with that point. Of course anything not about whites is irrelevant i guess. How classic but no, let me stop before you accuse me of being mean to you because you're white.
Class was the brunt of my argument because the system I'm talking about was easy even for you to get. Again, the case of gender, maintaining such a system is even simpler since men and women need each other as I said.
(Continued)
>>
>>7226341
We like him more than you though
>>
>>7226400
I don't know about patience but women are not more creative. There is no female Mozart or Da Vinchi, and there probably never will be. Sub Saharan Africans have probably invented more stuff than women ever have.
>>
>>7230010
(Continued)
Of course you ignore my argument because you have an entirely different and laughably elementary definition of oppression.
Yes, it can simply be a big man beating on a small man (or woman if we are going to keep this argument centered on gender as you insist). You are not wrong there. However, it is extremely shortsighted and just plain incorrect to assume that it has to be a big man physically beating on another man or even that it usually is. Humans are way too sophisticated for that, even if you're not for some reason(perhaps you're just bulshiting tho) In every society in the world that is not that simple.
The man doesn't have t be bigger and he could have someone else beat him up.The guy could black mail him; he could pollute his mind. Are you serious?
It's funny though, because, even if we strictly focus on gender that elementary explanation you sport still explains a lot more about why women we're oppressed throughout history than OPs suggestion that "women let themselves be oppressed." I mean, men are literally bigger than women after all.
Apparently the smaller man let the bigger man beat him up?

>>7229916
>>7229902
>incel
Lol. Not even close. Aren't are too "mainstream" for that after all?
Not an an argument either. You're basically arguing that my thinking is too abstract. It's really not anyway. I did answer OPs question about gender specifically. He asked why they remained oppressed, i brought up that oppression often involves systemic power structures esp historically. I used the feudal system as an excellent example of that. Only when that system was overthrown did class mobility become more common. You dislike that answer so you refuse to read or acknowledge it.
Besides, not my fault you can't think critically.
>>
>>7226036
Ancient Greece was a backwater compared to the Near East. All the science and philosophy basically came from Babylon and Phoenicia. The reason we know so much more about the Greeks and Romans relative to the Ancient Middle East and things coming down to us is because the Greeks and Romans typically used writing materials that could remain permanent like clay and stone. While the Middle East used papyrus and cow skins which were destroyed with time. The papyrus scrolls out of Egypt survived a bit better because of the climate and the way it was stored.

Europe only surpassed the Middle East, India and China in the last 400 years or so
>>
>>7230041
Now you're mixing up definitions too. Oppression=/= discrimination anon. What are you doing?
It can involve discrimination but does not mean the same thing.
It s not legal to discriminate against whites. If you're going to bring up Affirmative Action, which i don't even feel like talking about b/c we're bringing more modern shit, Asians are affected more so your argument is already failing.
Whites side with themselves everyday, anon and it's perfectly legal. It's being a supremacist that is looked down upon. Yes, it's bad when aftocentrists do it and i and others have called them out(including people on FB). What you mean is whites being white nationalist.
Even so, IS DEFINTELY NOT ILLEGAL. They are free to march in the streets. It causes uproar due to racist sentiments with superiority. Kind of like your response to the beauty standard point.
I'm sure it has nothing to do with the U.S.(a former European colony with a majority white population where "European features" are thus popular) has Hollywood, a billion dollar industry that has pumped media with mostly white actors and actresses for decades and has the money to expand globally, compared to other countries including other Europeans ones, influencing popular culture globally. Nah, it has to be that white people are just hotter despite that beauty is simply about facial symmetry AND that culture
>>
>>7230120
This.
Also is that fact that all empires fall. Western Europeans and Britoids/white Americans) just don't want to accept it for some reason.
>>
File: Kristin-Kreuk.jpg (40 KB, 400x500)
40 KB
40 KB JPG
>>7230184 #
(Continued)
Heavily influences what is considered beautiful. And of course personal preference but that is subordinate to culture.

No one is being replaced. White features would persist in the human population regardless if that did somehow happen. See pic related( a.ka. Eurasians, a living example of long term mixing). You're just a racist brainlet who doesn't understand how genetics works.
Besides, if we're using real facts here and not pseudo science, there's an easy explanation: whites aren't having enough kids since whites are likely to be more well off. People with more resources tend to have less kids. When people become less poor, the same shit happens over time. This has always been the case and now even more so since birth control. We may not even have to wait for that though. Higher accessibility to birth control thanks to "liberals" is a factor now too even for the poor
>>
>>7230041
Also:
>who cares about women
Are you trolling me now? You get mad about me not talking enough about women to answer OPs question and then you say this? This was OPs question! Yet you're calling me crazy?
>>
File: Teotihuacan map.jpg (567 KB, 1622x1264)
567 KB
567 KB JPG
>>7226036
>Africans, native Americans, island peoples, aboriginal Australians, sub saharan Africans all had the same amount of time throughout history as the rest of us but as the Greeks, Egyptians, Roman's and so on had civilisations, the aforementioned had nothing comparable in scale.

The amerindians factually fdid not have the same amount of time, they only arrived in the americas till much later. And they did develop complex civilization, multiple times all indepedently (wheras the greeks/romans/minoans etc got their shit from the fertile crescent), with also the disadvantages of not having pack animals.

> the aforementioned had nothing comparable in scale.
The more accomplished Mesoamerican and Andean civilizations were comparable in various ways to the Egyptians, Mesopotamians, the earlier Chinese dynasties, and in some respects even the Persians, Greeks, and Romans.

For example, Teotihuacan, pic related, was a city in Mexico from 200BC to 600AD that at it's height had 150,000 people (BTFOing the largest bronze and iron age european and near eastern cities and being comparable to large Greek and Roman ones) and actually exceed Rome in physical scale, covering 37 square kilometers, 22 of which were a urban planned grid of stone structures.
>>
>>7229492
>they were just stagnate in their version of the bronze age.

No they weren't, if anything they were ahead in their version of the bronze age (aside, ironically, from using bronze), since they had iron/classic tier cities, waterwork systems, etc within 1500 years of their first true urban centers on top of being bronze age tier in most other respects, see >>7230796
>>
>>7230796
>The more accomplished Mesoamerican and Andean civilizations were comparable in various ways to the Egyptians, Mesopotamians, the earlier Chinese dynasties, and in some respects even the Persians, Greeks, and Romans.
Shutup.

Beaners have never been capable of anything. This entire thread needs to stop considering "time", "opportunities", and "resources" available, and recognize that with the exception of whites, asians, and some middle easterners, these people are to different degrees evolutionarily retarded.
The most commonly recognized factor is IQ, but other important factors include empathy, trust, honesty, aggression, and of course time preference. Simply put, brown people score either too low or too high in these areas.

Try going to a beaner high school or middle school(you may not have to if they are bussed into your schools). Drug use is common, fights are weekly, gang membership is high.
Try living in a beaner neighborhood. I just moved to one. It's not even a poor neighborhood. When I was living in Ohio, I was in a white neighborhood that was much poorer. This beaner neighborhood is violent, even though they aren't poor. I was surprised to learn just how common violence is around here. Shootings and stabbings are frequent. All the while people here hate me just for being white.
Fuck what your professor told you. Try spending some time around beaners, and realize that the friendly mask that beaners show you, when in the company of white people, isn't genuine.
>>
>>7226534
>Japan
yet they were still lagging behind in Japan while many kingdoms in the fertile crescent flourished

How come, then, that the Japanese were still hunter-gathering in a very lightly sedentary lifestyle and only could form semi-complex societies some 2000 years after those in the middle-east?

obviously it isn't mainly the fact that they had to walk far, but instead the route they had to take, as well as the area of mainland Japan where they (were forced to) live in (i.e. quite infertile, much like most of north-america)
I mean, even Norte Chicho flourished long before the Japanese even left the Jomon culture behind
>>7226547
>>
>>7230220
Are you jewish?
>>
File: 1568131751277.jpg (7 KB, 190x190)
7 KB
7 KB JPG
>>7231148
>mfw beaner with 135 IQ

Deal with it white man.
>>
File: 1551802213705.png (261 KB, 425x377)
261 KB
261 KB PNG
>>7230120
>What are the Greek city states, Alexander the Great, the Diadochi, the Roman Empire

but next to that though, yeah the Franks and the HRE were pretty underwhelming compared to what was happening in the Orient
>>
>>7231148
Firstly, we are talking about indigenous mesoamericans, so if you wanna shit on spics you can still do that, in fact you could rationalize it by blaming race-mixing as to why the mesoamericans accomplished so much and mexico today how it is. Of course in reality the actual reason is corruption and instability that can be traced back to the colionmal period and the economic exploitation that enabled, but whatever, bottom line is I don't give a rat's ass about modern racial bullshit: If you wanna have a complex about latinos being inherently stupid or whatever, fine, i'm not informed enough or care enough to challenge you on that.

But what I do care about challenging is your implication that historically Mesoamerica never did impressive shit. You gonna tell me the archeological survey in >>7230796 is fake? You gonna tell me the ruins of the city in pic related, too? Were these all built by the mexican goverment as some sort of conpsiracy? You gonna argue that it's an outlier and it's the only complex site in the region? What about all the Conquistador accounts that talk about the cities (not teotihuacan, of course, since it was in ruins by then) as they were actually at their height and being lived in?

Again, bitch and moan about "beaners" today all you want but don't sit here and bullshit about how that region historically never did anything of value or was filled with people with low IQ when by the time Japan, who everybody dicksucks as being super intellegient, only developed cities over 1000 years after Mesoamerica had them, and that's even though Japan also had the advantage of being right next to China and having pack animals, wheras the Mesoamericans were totally isolated and had none.

How do you explain that away, if it's all about muh IQ? I guess, again, you could blame racemixing, but that wouldn't account for how you are shitting on the middle east when they did cities a whopping 5000 years sooner then japan
>>
>>7231283
based
>>
>>7230010
>Beauty standards are white. In these white countries, cultural standard is white.

Even in non-white countries western beauty standards infect them through the media.
>>
>>7226341
like I told you last night, you're not replying to anything that OP said: you are taking one small tiny bit and running on a tangent with it, which is unrelated,

And you're calling presumably 'everybody' 'white malez' and regurgitating television talking points which are like 20 years in the past and have no bearing on reality.

this is a history place, this is not /pol/
or anything remotely resembling the
dichotomy of left/right in political
argument ad hominem.

people are not as you think they are, you are advertising incredible bias which is off-putting and tasteless. that's why the other person told you to fuck off and called you smug.
>>
>>7226341
i.e. you're not looking to discuss,
>Women being equal to men
>Uneven historical achievements

You're just repeating 'oppression' as if we don't all know that, and have adopted the contemporary fiction that 1) all white people did this; when ordinary white people lost work to slave labor all the time (and still do to this day, think: apple factoriesand sweat shops) and obviously did not benefit from it at all.

The argument, if it's sincere, maybe it is at least sincere, is profoundly ignorant to economics and commonsense.

This has zero to do with,
>Uneven historical achievements
or
>Women being equal to men
>>
>>7230796
they were at the same tech level when they arrived (bows and arrows)
>>
>ctrl-f
>Nakba
>phrase not found

How about that time Israel ethnically cleansed almost all the Palestinians from the territory they controlled? People HATE talking about this.
>>
>>7226036
>>Women being equal to men

see: >>7229480
lot's of points in there which prove women had it marginally good and successful; point about class however is the larger thing; working poor 'always' have it bad. That's oppression, but not 'gender oppression'.

>Uneven historical achievements
I disagree: the standard used to measure these things is not exactly some universally applicable measure on what is and is not 'good civilization' - for instance in the west we pay so much in taxes, have no real say in how anything is done and can't even catch a fish without paying the government a licensing fee. Not exactly a good position to look down on other places from.

>peoples have not made civilisations in any way comparable the West

what an endless cycle of 'progress' at the expense of everybody?

Nor would I. If I was Emperor of China or Basileus of the Aegean and I learned a man had invented a Spinning Jenny machine that would obviously put half the people out of work and spark a thousand horrible consequences from that, do you know what I would do to that man? Arrest him!
>>
File: download (2).jpg (6 KB, 220x158)
6 KB
6 KB JPG
>>7226220
>Vibrant
>>
>>7231731
>>ctrl-f
>>Nakba
>>phrase not found
>How about that time Israel ethnically cleansed almost all the Palestinians from the territory they controlled? People HATE talking about this.

And THAT has nothing to do with the subjects either.

What is wrong with you guys? Did that smug person start this? Gods in hell, ignore it! DAMN
>>
>>7231148
>Beaners have never been capable of anything. This entire thread needs to stop considering "time", "opportunities", and "resources" available, and recognize that with the exception of whites, asians, and some middle easterners, these people are to different degrees evolutionarily retarded.

When did whites, asians, and some middle easterners STOP being retarded? Around 1000 BC?

It must have been after they developed agriculture and iron-working and urban living, since Africans and Americans did two out of three, and Australians did one out of three.
>>
>>7231761

It's an uncomfortable historical truth. Your butthurt proves it.

Another one is that the original Muslims were Christian and Jewish tribes who amalgamated more than converted, they each had their own books that said each of them was the chosen people, and Islam synchronized them.
>>
>>7231283
AGREED.

Whoeever said that Mesoamerica had developed 'nothing' are prfoudnly fucking ignorant.

The Inca were like the Greeks, the Aztecs were like the Romans in their early imperial war phase, the Olmecs who seeded both of them are like the Etruscans. If that puts the place into context for the layman.
>>
>>7231792
have to put the Songhai up there too, closer to the Romans in their imperial war phase
>>
>>7231791
>>>7231761 (You)
>It's an uncomfortable historical truth. Your butthurt proves it.

It has no bearing on the subject here. You're derailing the subject. It's not news to anybody here that that happened.
>>
>>7226231
Why? Buttmad pablo?
>>
>>7231805

But it IS something that is almost impossible to discuss in the mainstream. It's not news HERE, but go to any other history forum and people will outright say it didn't happen.
>>
>>7231804
Yes! That is true as well.

What's the measure for civilization anyway?Building cities and roads? If that's true all of Europe has been living in the skeletons of Roman cities using the skeletons of Roman Roads and Roman Law all this time. Not technically a Christian-European thing.

I won't bore the people here with how the Kingdom of Ethiopia probably was the actual Israel of the bible, but it's the same sort of thing. There's also incredible architecture in the West Sahara (see: the canal/city/mountain ruins of the 'eye of the sahara') which suggests insanely advanced people living there who we don't know anything about.

And... floodplain irrigation: the nile, mesoamerica, east asia, this produced higher yield for less time investment than does the dirt farming we use to this day.

And.. the inventions, things like the steam turbine and the railway, television and the iphone, these are largely the doings of one guy working by himself. Much like everything else.
>>
>>7226259
they also lacked any non-shitty animals to tame. lamas and hamsters are pretty shit compared to horses and cows. the native empires in south and central americas were truly impressive, given their circumstances. the same cant be said for many other groups
>>
>>7231815
The TV isn't talking about a million other things that happened in the past either already, if you add contemporary politics into it you can understand why some subjects would get even less attention.

Trust me, goy, the world is way more complex than "it's the jews who did done it all!"
>>
>>7231869
>the same cant be said for many other groups

The Tupi Indians are cool as fuck.
>>
>>7231871

I was just dropping one uncomfortable historical truth into the thread about uncomfortable historical truths. Judging from anon's response, this IS an uncomfortable historical truth.

>it's the jews who did done it all!
They did carry out the Nakba. What else did I say?
>>
>>7231855
>I won't bore the people here with how the Kingdom of Ethiopia probably was the actual Israel of the bible, but it's the same sort of thing. There's also incredible architecture in the West Sahara (see: the canal/city/mountain ruins of the 'eye of the sahara') which suggests insanely advanced people living there who we don't know anything about.

Please do bore me or give me links.
>>
>>7231177
>lying on the internet
>>
>>7231938
>>>7231855 (You)
>>I won't bore the people here with how the Kingdom of Ethiopia probably was the actual Israel of the bible, but it's the same sort of thing. There's also incredible architecture in the West Sahara (see: the canal/city/mountain ruins of the 'eye of the sahara') which suggests insanely advanced people living there who we don't know anything about.
>Please do bore me or give me links.

Just google :)

But I'd suggest that people would be very in denial about it that as well, considering that literally anything that disturbs a fragile historical narrative that is invested in contemporary politics will also be attacked out of hand for reasons they probably couldn't actually explain.
>>
>>7229703
american college "education" is literally a mind virus
>>
>>7232020

It's turning out to be hard to find links through the search engine.

Just drop a line or two about the thing, or post any link.

I had read about how Aksum was Jewish for centuries before they became Christian (and had their own version of the schism that happened in Judea), but I hadn't heard much about Ethiopia being the original Israel.
>>
>>7230220
sounds like you are completely fine with the genocide of whites, in one way or another. you must have been a great college drone.
>>
>>7230229
>reading comprehension
on the topic of women: who cares?
>>7230184
>oppression /= discrimination
yes it is, discriminatory behavior is oppressive.
>what are you doing
>does not mean the same thing
so what? The oppression whites face involves discrimination, that is apart of oppression.
>it's not legal to discriminate against whites
actually it is
Anything that is non-white only is discrimintory against whites.
Diversity quotes being the easiest example.
>affirmative action
>not relative because its modern
>despite (You) stating that whites in the modern world face no oppression
already you are changing the goalposts.
>whites side with themselves everyday
in what way?
>its supremacist thats looked down upon
really? Firstly, are whites supreme? Evidence suggests they are a cut above the average non-white.
Secondly, hispanic pride is no more or less supremacist than white pride,one gets you fired and the other gets you adoration.
>it is sad when Africans prefer Africans over non-Africans
yes yes very sad that I love my children (genetic similars) over some random old man (genetically distant) clearly identifying on the basis of genetics is wrong and bad, abolish children and family.
>white nationalist
What you mean is ethnic nationalist.....so like, every white nation before 1930 and every non-white nation today?
Right because obviously theres a problem with the thing that people are MOST comfortable with.
>not illegal
except it is.
>but there is no direct law
If a Police officer constantly arrests you for non-crimes (which they do) wouldn't you say it is in a practical sense illegal?
>free to march in the streets
They are denied medical aid and law enforcement is told to not intervene if they are attacked.
There is no evidence of the alleged wignats starting violence in charlottesville or in Oregon yet the police did not defend them. The message is overt and clear, your denial of reality is striking and only betrays your anti-white sentiments.
>>
>>7232052
>I had read about how Aksum was Jewish for centuries before they became Christian (and had their own version of the schism that happened in Judea), but I hadn't heard much about Ethiopia being the original Israel.

That's basically all there is to it, just add these things together:
1) Aksum is in Ethiopia
2) it's also where King Solomon lived
ergo..
>>
>>7230184
>racist sentiments with superiority
Preferring your own people remain the majority in a country your ancestors founded is supremacist or racist?
Please dont just claim things, provide evidence, prove your point.
Why/how is it illegal or supremacist to seek asylum from discrimination in your own home country.
Are you an anti-semite too? Do you hate Jews or do you think Jews should just give up their identity?
If you think everyone should be equally rootless then youre just retarded, thats not how humans act, start living in the real world.
>beauty standard point
Are beauty standards subjective?
Then it is not the fault of whites other subjectively find them most attractive.
Are beauty standards objective?
It is not the fault of whites they are objectively beautiful.
Listen, you dont get to just claim things such as beauty standards being synthetically white.
In all times and all places light hair and eyes and skin was idealized, so maybe its not white culture maybe its just that whites are very fucking sexy? Huh? Is that what it sounds like? Or is your concept that every civilization from Egypt to Now was dominated by a Nordic ruling class who instituted white beauty standards? So what is it? Are whites dominating non-whites throughout history or is white beauty objective?
>nothing to do with hollywood or the US
India and China both watch their own movies more than ours and they still prefer our features.
Historically before the US was a thing, non-whites and whites alike idealizing white beauty.
its not "white" beauty standards, its just beauty standards.
Lighter blacks are more beautiful than darking blacks ACCORDING TO BLACKs
Thats not a white beauty standard that is light features being preferred over dark features.
Maybe lighter = better?
Thats what everyone seems to think.
>facial symmetry
Its more coloration but ok whatever helps you cope lol
>>
>>7232079

Ah! King Solomon! That'll help the search engine find some stuff on this. Thanks.

Aksum being Jewish and then turning Christian is also one of the uncomfortable historical truths. Any peaceful conversions out of Judaism are extremely taboo to discuss.
>>
>>7232102
Thats about as big if a deal as hermione being slytherin. Doesnt impact my life in any real way
>>
>>7230220
>of course personal preference but that is subordinate to culture.
proof?
Do you have any evidence for this or is this another ass claim?
You like to say a lot of things but conveniently excuse yourself from having to justify or substantiate them.
Everyone sees your wrong, my jewish friend.
You cant win this one by swaying some non-existent populace. You stick out like a sore thumb

>no one is being replaced
Objectively and demonstrably incorrect.
Europeans are a global minority and non-Europeans are being invited into their nations.
That is replacement. There is no other term for it.
>white features would persist
>see Eurasians
>see pic
yes clearly that woman is indistinguishable from Swedish stock.
Get the out
White features would not persist, blonde hair, blue eyes, a slim face, flat forehead, these things will not persist, they will not continue on in unbroken tandum as they have for millennia

>racist brainlet who doesnt understand genetics
stop projecting my anti white friend
>whites arent having enough kids
So the population ought to decline until it grows again
>birth control thanks to "liberals"
thats kind of out of left field are you sure youre not here with a chip on your shoulder?

But back to the point.
>declining birth rates
so what? Importing millions of niggers is going to remedy the birth rate?
No, THAT IS REPLACEMENT
if your birth rate declines and someone floods your country with people who are not like you
THAT IS REPLACEMENT
>>
>>7232094
>Then it is not the fault of whites other subjectively find them most attractive.
>Are beauty standards objective?
>It is not the fault of whites they are objectively beautiful.
>Listen, you dont get to just claim things such as beauty standards being synthetically white.

I'm not the person you're talking to but, hello.

It is a long attested almost universal fact that for whatever reason, and I'll speculate below, light skin is seen as desirable and high class; Godly and pure; in East Asia, Africa, India, Americas, etc etc.

The cosmetics/beautycare industries suck and capitalizes on this, but it's preexisting, it' not created in the last 50 years by shell oils Little Mary Makeup subsidiary, I mean it's just not,

Probably this is best highlighted in that lighter skin meant nobility automatically because if you worked in the sun you were obviously a neerdowell vagabond, out looking for trouble, or just a dirt poor laborer, because if you were without a tan it meant that you were rich and protected and had other people to do your labor and soldiering on your behalf. Men and women alike.

How it became seen as 'literal ancestral white Gods' in other cultures I couldn't even hazard a guess.. probably a Phoenician ship rocked up on the coast in 1000BC and taught the local people how to do some incredibly trivial thing.

It's also relative to the beholder, no cliche intended, if you're a light skinned Indian or Han comparing yourself to a very dark skinned Indian or Han you're going to paint one darker and one lighter, it's not automatically referring to Europeans.
>>
>>7232020
>>7231855
>just google it
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>television trains etc were produced by one man
Well not really, but that one man was always white. It was always a white man.
If one man could do it, why couldn’t non-whites
>inb4 it required cultural and technological pre requisites
Right so other white achievements got it
>>
>>7232107

Yes, but it's super-difficult to discuss it with anyone. It's an uncomfortable historical truth.
>>
>>7226220
Bravo
You ruined the thread by making everyone concentrate on this shitty post
You provided no evidence because it doesn't exist outside of being biased, OP is right.
also
>patient
>creative
gtfo
>>
>>7232116
>How it became seen as 'literal ancestral white Gods' in other cultures I couldn't even hazard a guess.. probably a Phoenician ship rocked up on the coast in 1000BC and taught the local people how to do some incredibly trivial thing.

Like agriculture and iron-working? It would take long-term contact to introduce that from outside, not one random ship unrecorded by history.
>>
File: lautaro1.jpg (102 KB, 530x350)
102 KB
102 KB JPG
It's always funny to hear this bs from the losers.
>>
>>7232124
>>just google it
>HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Yes moron, learn to cross examine sources from the greatest digital library combining mankinds total knowledge over all known history. The skill helps, cheese-brain.

>>7232124
>>television trains etc were produced by one man
>Well not really, but that one man was always white. It was always a white man.
>If one man could do it, why couldn’t non-whites
>>inb4 it required cultural and technological pre requisites
>Right so other white achievements got it

Same argument is made for Jews: they weren't shit eating low IQ zombie-god worshipers, they were highly intelligent Jews, superior to the rabble.

Why couldn't goys come up with these things for themselves?
>>
File: the cycle of love.png (112 KB, 494x626)
112 KB
112 KB PNG
>>
>>7232135
>>>7232116 (You)
>>How it became seen as 'literal ancestral white Gods' in other cultures I couldn't even hazard a guess.. probably a Phoenician ship rocked up on the coast in 1000BC and taught the local people how to do some incredibly trivial thing.
>Like agriculture and iron-working? It would take long-term contact to introduce that from outside, not one random ship unrecorded by history.

Yeah we don't know, but that's the most likely explanation I think. It wouldn't have to be a particularly intelligent Phoenician or anything, just looking so different would be enough to make jaws drop. The locals would then interpret this and not really understand anything he said anyway.

I don't mean that a ship comes along and gives actual knowledge to them. Of Iron Work, in the Bronze or Copper Age.
>>
>>7232188
Most of those are myths or bullshit, with no other evidence besides sculptures being done in white material.

Also Phoenicians were middle easterns with curly hair.
>>
>the most likely explanation I think.

and even then, this is even more likely,
>It's also relative to the beholder, no cliche intended, if you're a light skinned Indian or Han comparing yourself to a very dark skinned Indian or Han you're going to paint one darker and one lighter, it's not automatically referring to Europeans.
>>
>>7232197
>sculptures being done in white material.

Agreed. But why would they do that unless,
>Probably this is best highlighted in that lighter skin meant nobility automatically because if you worked in the sun you were obviously a neerdowell vagabond, out looking for trouble, or just a dirt poor laborer, because if you were without a tan it meant that you were rich and protected and had other people to do your labor and soldiering on your behalf. Men and women alike.

>Phoenicians were middle easterns with curly hair.

So were the Greco-Romans. Silly goose.

Wait, you're a Eurocentrist and your claim to fame begins and ends with the filthy dirty stringy haired savages of the distant north? OMG OMFG
>>
>>7226036
>Men have been the gender to invent, discover and build most of that that has been invented, discovered or built.

Yeah but they did most of it to impress women. Men would have been content to just live in cavey and hunt wild animals with stone weapons for eternity. But women selected men who provided them with more stuff so men had to come up with new ways to provide women with more comfort, which eventually led to what we call civilization.
>>
>>7232188

It's more likely that Africans learned agriculture and iron-working in one generation after contact with Phoenicians, and kept it up since then - than for Africans to have developed agriculture and iron-working by themselves over countless generations, like many peoples.
>>
>>7232245
>It's more likely that Africans learned agriculture and iron-working in one generation after contact with Phoenicians, and kept it up since then - than for Africans to have developed agriculture and iron-working by themselves over countless generations, like many peoples.

eeeh again, we don't know. We don't know whether the same Tesla Genius was what figured those things out. I mean, two choices,

1) it takes you thousands of generations to figure out how to, for instance, grow rice effectively in a floodplain - every attempt prior t the final attempt is a failure, which doesn't make logical sense

or
2) one guy figured it out by himself and said, "hey, look at this!"

I'd go with the latter.
>>
>>7232259

But then in 2), he says 'hey, look at this', people understand it, the knowledge spreads, and it is practiced by most of the members of the society.

I don't think one person invented agriculture in any of the places it was developed. Tesla geniuses make inventions that last when they're doing it in a society that can exploit them.

African's were obviously developed enough that they either i) developed agriculture along the way like every other population of humans, or ii) the whole society picked it up in one generation when a few of them observing a few Phoenicians demonstrating it.
>>
>>7232341
Yes. Exactly, watch person climbing tree; learn to climb tree by watching = success.
>>
>>7226036
The greeks were kiddy diddling faggots who got their shit from the middle east and the romans were authoritarian niggers that destroyed the spirit of the people they conquered. Even nowadays the med area is the worst part of Europe.
Also Western history started with the reformation.
>>
>>7226036
Good news. There's an entire board for this discussion. Let me show you the way >>>/pol/
>>
>>7232408
Good news. There's the entire rest of the internet if you're a crying faggot afraid of the evil and elusive '''/pol/'''. Let me show you the way 8=======D ~~~~
>>
>>7232378

Agriculture is more complicated than that. You have to see many different parts working without any obvious immediate benefit, over the course of years or even generations.

The point is that the people of West Africa were capable of implementing a complex idea that they heard described only a handful of times (do many Phoenician crops grow in West Africa?), or, more likely, they developed it by themselves (since they use plants native to the region). In either case, the whole population was on average intelligent enough to implement these ideas, and spread them across the whole southern portion of the continent.
>>
>>7232443
But this is a board for historical discussion. Not thinly veiled incelbait. That's this board >>>/pol/ I can see the confusion since there is a vague guise of historical discussion here but really the OP was created to provoke fuck roastie and fuck nigger replies, which is /pol/. I hope this clears things up.
>>
>>7232462
>waaaaaaaah I'm a huge faggot please give more cock heeelp
I don't get what you meant by that.
And are you assure you're allowed to say the n word and the r word? Dangerous vocabulary.
>>
>>7232482
>>waaaaaaaah I'm a huge faggot please give more cock heeelp
>I don't get what you meant by that.
>And are you assure you're allowed to say the n word and the r word? Dangerous vocabulary.
>>
>>7226220
You have ruined this thread with your low iq shitpost.

Funny thing is I bet you think youre quite clever too, you sound like a braindead moron that gets his education from memes.
>>
>>7232498
Not interested, faggot
>>
File: soyboy26.jpg (49 KB, 640x640)
49 KB
49 KB JPG
>>7232534
>Not interested, faggot
>>
File: 1517718243379.jpg (394 KB, 1017x575)
394 KB
394 KB JPG
>>7229993
>meaningful dialogue
The likeliest outcome with that OP.
>>
>>7232459
>>>7232378 (You)
>Agriculture is more complicated than that. You have to see many different parts working without any obvious immediate benefit, over the course of years or even generations.

Agree in principle. But,

>The point is that the people of West Africa were capable of implementing a complex idea that they heard described only a handful of times (do many Phoenician crops grow in West Africa?), or, more likely, they developed it by themselves (since they use plants native to the region). In either case, the whole population was on average intelligent enough to implement these ideas, and spread them across the whole southern portion of the continent.

But not in reality; think: (oh, i'll use the good example here..) why would you share your knowledge of SILKWORMS with foreigners? You wouldn't spread the knowledge at all, you'd value it as a commodity and utilize it for your people, meaning your ruling clan, you wouldn't just give it out. Think tactically, and fiscally.
>>
File: 1568117480394.jpg (82 KB, 648x460)
82 KB
82 KB JPG
>>7226036
>Uneven historical achievements
Cringy retard
>Europe and Asia are literally filled with cattle and superb soil which nourish the population and rivers enabling fast transport of information and products
>Meanwhile isolated Sub-Sahara Africa and Australia are filled with animals which kill you, no navigable rivers outside two rivers in West Africa and bad to no soil
>Mesoamerica and the Incas literally BTFO'd God himself by creating highly advanced civilization without useful livestock like horses and the fucking wheel and only was brought to its knees due to diseases and multiple megadroughts combined, and they are still kicking today, quechua being spoken by millions
>>
>>7232613
>But not in reality; think: (oh, i'll use the good example here..) why would you share your knowledge of SILKWORMS with foreigners? You wouldn't spread the knowledge at all, you'd value it as a commodity and utilize it for your people, meaning your ruling clan, you wouldn't just give it out. Think tactically, and fiscally.

And yet agriculture and iron-working did spread out from Nigeria to the rest of Sub-Saharan Africa. Every Bantu and related village had dozens of people who could farm the land and herd the cattle, and probably more than one who could work iron.

They just could not have learned this from accounts of farming from a handful of sailors. And even if they did, that would be a sign of the intelligence of the people who adopted the idea.
>>
>>7232094
>Lighter blacks are more beautiful than darking blacks ACCORDING TO BLACKs

None of that is legitimate since the entire world has been exposed to western beauty standards.
>>
>>7232158
Based.
>>
>>7232224
No. Men mostly did it for themselves.
>>
>>7233164
>>Meanwhile isolated Sub-Sahara Africa and Australia are filled with animals which kill you, no navigable rivers outside two rivers in West Africa and bad to no soil

Wait is that true? People are always talking about how rich Africa is in resources and shit like it was Utopia on Earth.
>>
>>7226292
Stop ruining my board faggot
>>
sads
>>
>>7226341
>triggered libs/leftists
>getting this mad about your misoginy being pointed out
>anyone who disagrees is leftist
>>
>>7226036
>>Women being equal to men
Roasties are inferior
>>
>>7226036
There were not enough indigenous people to create a civilization. I'm becoming convinced that the appearence of civilization was the result of mass violence perpetrated by one group against other groups. Tribalism is very strong in humans, so social inequality was probably achieved when one group conquered another one turning them into slaves or peasants. Of course with time and increasing social complexity the groups merge together, and people from the conquered tribe can also achieve high social status.

With low population density civilization cannot emerge because there isn't enough people you can force to build cities, roads or impressive monuments.
>>
>>7235202
What made you convinced of this?
>>
>>7235471
The low population of native Americans, aboriginals, and South Africans. .
>>
>>7226036
>Men have been the gender to invent, discover and build most of that that has been invented, discovered or built, why?
It's less to do with 'oppression' and more with the nature of premodern societies selecting for a division of labour in which men are in the driver's seat.

Take a tribe of hunter-gatherers and they'll have a quite rigid set of gender roles, corresponding to human biology and cultural quirks. Men tended to venture further from camp to hunt, patrol and fight against other tribes, while the women maintained the home. This division doesn't necessarily mean the tasks of women were less important, but it did entail that men would naturally become the ones who dominated a lot of the important decision-making. Another factor is how both sexes were objectified, in the literal sense. Young men were an asset in terms of manpower, but women were important in that they were a resource in terms of growth A tribe could lose a few men in wars and survive, but losing women was effectively a population cap. Not only that, but a large number of men in a community competing for a smaller number of women obviously isn't great for stability. So this fact does lay the foundation for men having a controlling role over their wonenfolk, albeit likely in a communal sense.

This is then the cultural basis in which early agricultural and pastoral civilization emerged, and things got more stratified from there. The population exploded, social classes started to form and the notion of property, communal or not, took root. Whereas tribes were generally one extended clan, this wasn't the case afterwards. They were one of many, if they existed at all and the nuclear family hadn't become more important. New forms of social glue were needed, on the smallest and highest level, and the naturally dominant male roles became more extended and entrenched, especially as the Bronze Age gave way to more localized and warlike polities.
>>
>>7235728
So by the Iron Age we have a lot of societies that can definitely be labeled as 'patriarchal'. Societies which are stratified along lines in which men dominate and masculine values like warfare are considered the highest virtues. It's largely a natural consequence of human civilizations emerging and competing. As they became more urbanised and developed, the dominance of the warrior-landowner ideal waned somewhat and more opportunities for women to rise (informally) come about, but they were never permanent or extensive and that's due to quite a few factors. One is certainly the deep-seated mess of cultural conventions, but this wasn't always total. Secondly, a lot of the fundamental reasons for those divisions didn't just disappear. Women were still an important asset to marry off and to continue family lineages. Another is the fact that the opportunities that there were were still very slim. It was hard enough for the average man throughout history to get a proper education and to engage and succeed in a pursuit outside of the traditional peasant-elite dynamic, let alone a woman, often simply because those things weren't available. Those needed time to develop, and a lot of civilizations just collapsed. The Roman Empire is a good example, as it had quite a lot of liberated and powerful women and even one or two female scientists in its height and twilight, but it's collapse in the West meant basically a reversal back to the Early Iron Age state of being.
>>
>>7235838
As a result of all of this, you really only have a handful of female intellectuals poking up in the premodern era, and most of those could only engage in that because they were very privileged. It's only in the last few centuries that (Western) civilizations developed to the point where the opportunities for women (sufficient level of education, the social obsolescence of arranged marriages, enough career opportunities in services or intellectual pursuits) that outweighed the, by then, largely ingrained cultural against the notion, and in my opinion the only time where you can argue that 'oppression' was the only thing holding (upper and middle class, obviously. Plebs don't count) women back from excelling intellectually. It was becoming increasingly silly throughout the late 18th and 19th centuries to withold the right to study and vote from women in Liberal countries, when many of the principal political agitators were women and the salons they gathered were hosted by them. So it's not surprising that many men voted to grant them that at the turn of the 20th century. Ironically though, women's activism and the movement for suffrage in the US and in some other countries is quite heavily linked with the Temperance League, a movement of mostly rural, middle-aged housewives essentially demanding that men 'man up' and fulfill their traditional roles.
>>
>>7235174
But you are a triggered lib pointing out non-existing misogyny as if it mattered and the only people who agree with you are other leftists
Go harass some woman about her being oprressrd by her husband you closet rapist onions
>>
>>7235042
You aren’t a board native.
>>7233668
Nor are you
>>7235174
You almost certainly are not. Please go back to redd*t this board is for high level discourse
>>
>>7226036
>Ancient Egyptians were black.
>Blacks built America
>>
>>7236167
They did pick the cotton.



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.