The White Christian Male Power Structure

[Bud Struggle]

The White Christian Male Power Structure.

They seem to be on top? What are they doing right (wrong) that got them there?

Why not Black Women?

What do they do better(?) than anyone else to rule the world?

Bill O'Reill and John McCain discussing the issue.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysoOB...eature=related

[534634634265]

well, they've had a good jump-start on any other group gunning for world domination. they were able to enslave and oppress all other "male culture" contenders, and by continuing the patriarchal society they've disenfranchised woman since practically day one.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

They were fortunate enough to originate on the continent of Europe, whose geography made it the prime contender for world domination. Among other things, Europe has the most fractured coastline of any continent in the world, which favoured the development of seafaring, which is what propelled Europeans to world conquest.

[534634634265]

They were fortunate enough to originate on the continent of Europe, whose geography made it the prime contender for world domination. Among other things, Europe has the most fractured coastline of any continent in the world, which favoured the development of seafaring, which is what propelled Europeans to world conquest.

well thought-out but i feel an addendum to this is that due to the closeness of the European nations, competitiveness was almost unceasing. Africa and the Americas have more coastline, but less drive to conquer due to less competition for land and resources. thoughts?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Africa and the Americas only have more coastline in absolute terms, because they're larger continents. But in terms of coastline divided by total area, Europe definitely comes out far ahead of any other continent. Europe also has an enormous number of natural harbours, and a better network of navigable rivers than most other continents ("better" in the sense that Europe is cris-crossed by a multitude of navigable rivers, as opposed to having most of them flow into one single super-river, like the Mississippi or the Amazon).

Regarding the closeness of European nations, I'm not sure. Africa, North America or Asia have (or had) just as many nations prior to European imperialist conquest.

As a huge advantage over the Americas, Europe also had horses.

As an advantage over Asia, Europe was much closer to easily-conquerable lands (it's much easier to cross the Atlantic than the Pacific, and much easier to get to sub-saharan Africa from Spain than from India or China).

As an advantage over the Middle East, Europe was not flat and wide open to invaders.

[Killfacer]

europe had an advantage over the middle east? Bullshit. The middle east/north east africa was the cradle of civilisation for donkeys years (babylon, egypt, persia etc). The only reason europe became more powerful is because it smashed the middle east/north africa. First of all with Alexander the Great then with the Crusades/reconquista.

[Dimentio]

europe had an advantage over the middle east? Bullshit. The middle east/north east africa was the cradle of civilisation for donkeys years (babylon, egypt, persia etc). The only reason europe became more powerful is because it smashed the middle east/north africa. First of all with Alexander the Great then with the Crusades/reconquista.

The Middle East almost smashed Europe as late as 1683.

[Killfacer]

i know, take the moors in spain. If Charles Martel hadnt won the battle of poiters then i very much doubt the white christian power structure would be the dominate one. Even after that you only have to look at Ghengis Khan, if he hadnt died then once again i doubt white christians would have dominated world politics.

[Kronos]

Because of the nationalist/imperialist interests of the dominant caucasian races during the industrialization period of the north american continent?

Let's say a certain incident was reversed; Africa became an industrial power before Europe and North America. They went to North America and after becoming established through colonialism...went to Europe to get some caucasian slaves.

A few hundred years later, Africa is a capitalist democracy (like we are now) and the caucasian races are a minority which only recently experienced slavery...one hundred or so years before the abolition of slavery.

The political superstructures of the most powerful industrial nation in the world would be run by a majority of black people, and there would be a leftist site where a black dude named Tom K asked why he, and people like him, were so hard core.

Imagine that.

No but really...your observation, Tom K, has everything to do with the history of political powers. Capitalism was a European theory...since in Europe the first feudalisms which were ripe enough for revolution were staged, and the "proper" elements for an emergence of capitalism were evolving.

Economically primitive countries couldn't make a transition into market capitalism if they wanted. There simply isn't enough "production potential" in a country that has little technology.

Basically it is as I said- there were nationalist interests in spreading industrialization throughout the world. "America" was an accidental discovery...but allied European countries immediately took an interest in it.

So "Whitey" just happened to be the race that occupied the most industrially powerful demographic region of the planet. Europe. It's all about the speed at which nations compete for supremacy over the globe. Nations that have minimal industry will be occupied by races which have minimal participation in the superstructures of capitalism....especially in its imperialist phases (when a capitalist nation subordinates another country economically) Although, of course, this is a contingency (insert the reverse incident above) and racial "supremacy" is a metaphysical concept....being irrelevant to the coincidence that the "white man" happens to be of the dominant "race".

[534634634265]

Because of the nationalist/imperialist interests of the dominant caucasian races during the industrialization period of the north american continent?

Let's say a certain incident was reversed; Africa became an industrial power before Europe and North America. They went to North America and after becoming established through colonialism...went to Europe to get some caucasian slaves.

A few hundred years later, Africa is a capitalist democracy (like we are now) and the caucasian races are a minority which only recently experienced slavery...one hundred or so years before the abolition of slavery.

The political superstructures of the most powerful industrial nation in the world would be run by a majority of black people, and there would be a leftist site where a black dude named Tom K asked why he, and people like him, were so hard core.

Imagine that.

No but really...your observation, Tom K, has everything to do with the history of political powers. Capitalism was a European theory...since in Europe the first feudalisms which were ripe enough for revolution were staged, and the "proper" elements for an emergence of capitalism were evolving.

Economically primitive countries couldn't make a transition into market capitalism if they wanted. There simply isn't enough "production potential" in a country that has little technology.

Basically it is as I said- there were nationalist interests in spreading industrialization throughout the world. "America" was an accidental discovery...but allied European countries immediately took an interest in it.

So "Whitey" just happened to be the race that occupied the most industrially powerful demographic region of the planet. Europe. It's all about the speed at which nations compete for supremacy over the globe. Nations that have minimal industry will be occupied by races which have minimal participation in the superstructures of capitalism....especially in its imperialist phases (when a capitalist nation subordinates another country economically) Although, of course, this is a contingency (insert the reverse incident above) and racial "supremacy" is a metaphysical concept....being irrelevant to the coincidence that the "white man" happens to be of the dominant "race".
:bored: damn, thats a good explanation.

[Kronos]

But Bill O-Reily is an idiot man. Don't believe anything he says.

The "Christian" religion just happened to be the dominant religious majority of the caucasian races...which founded America through colonialism.

Here is O-Reily in a short interview with Dawkins. What the viewing public does not realize is that it is an insult even to expect Dawkins to try to have a conversation with that dipshit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FARDDcdFaQ

To the public, Dawkins is incomprehensible...and because of that...they are intimidated. And even in this interview Dawkins keeps it simple. Still O-Reily has no capacity for logic. The fallacies Dawkins points out go unnoticed.

[Killfacer]

it wasnt a good answer, it was "europe is more powerful because it industrialised faster" dressed up with long words.

[Sir Comradical]

The answer lies in a very good book by Jarred Diamond called 'Guns Germs and Steel'.

[Kronos]

These were the questions:


The White Christian Male Power Structure.

They seem to be on top? What are they doing right (wrong) that got them there? You can attribute this fact to other influences such as media propaganda and even racist and/or sexist conspiracy. This means that either the white christian male didn't have an advantage when this country was established, and gained advantage through the above mediums, or the white christian male had the advantage over other groups and has maintained that advantage through media propaganda and perhaps some kind of racist or sexist conspiracy.

So it more rational to assume that the reason why the white christian male has such power is because of having some advantage during the development of this country.

Do you want to assume that the white christian male doesn't have such power and we are all subliminally programmed to experience a holographic world engineered by white christian males which makes it appear as if they do have such power?

If my answer wasn't a good answer...it is because the question isn't a good question. It is too simple.

[Kronos]

However the questions are answered, it would be more difficult to propose that the "white christian male" is an inherently better racial/cultural group.

Assuming that he isn't, one would look for a contingent explanation or a series of contingent explanations. Economic and aesthetic factors will be involved in any and all explanations. By aesthetic factor I mean "ideology". In this case if there is an ideology that is the cause for the dominance of the white christian male, it would either be a religious belief system, an economic theory/system, a racist/sexist belief system, or a combination of some of them.

[Bud Struggle]

No but really...your observation, Tom K, has everything to do with the history of political powers. Capitalism was a European theory...since in Europe the first feudalisms which were ripe enough for revolution were staged, and the "proper" elements for an emergence of capitalism were evolving.

True Capitalism was a European theory--but I think the answer lies in WHY Europeans could come up with that theory. Oddly enough your boy Nietzsche knew the answer.


Economically primitive countries couldn't make a transition into market capitalism if they wanted. There simply isn't enough "production potential" in a country that has little technology. But why were the W M Europeans able to develop the technology? Where did all the money come from--all the technology? Surely the plains of Europe weren't any more fertile than the plains of America or Asia or southern Africa. Surely there weren't any more mineral resources. Why were the white male Europeans better able to exploit what they had better than other peoples in other places?


Basically it is as I said- there were nationalist interests in spreading industrialization throughout the world. "America" was an accidental discovery...but allied European countries immediately took an interest in it. Well, America wasn't discovered--there were plenty of people living here already.


So "Whitey" just happened to be the race that occupied the most industrially powerful demographic region of the planet. Europe. It's all about the speed at which nations compete for supremacy over the globe. Nations that have minimal industry will be occupied by races which have minimal participation in the superstructures of capitalism....especially in its imperialist phases (when a capitalist nation subordinates another country economically) Although, of course, this is a contingency (insert the reverse incident above) and racial "supremacy" is a metaphysical concept....being irrelevant to the coincidence that the "white man" happens to be of the dominant "race".

Yea--there are LOTS of areas around the globe just as rich as America and richer than Europe. The white Europeans had one tool that these people didn't that enabled him to develop the technology and the ideologies to utilize these technologies to their fullest potential...

[Unicorn]

The Middle East almost smashed Europe as late as 1683.
Umm... Turkey is not in the Middle East.

[#FF0000]

The answer lies in a very good book by Jarred Diamond called 'Guns Germs and Steel'.

I haven't read the book, but I saw a documentary that Jarred Diamond did based on it. It really was fantastic.


europe had an advantage over the middle east? Bullshit. The middle east/north east africa was the cradle of civilisation for donkeys years (babylon, egypt, persia etc). The only reason europe became more powerful is because it smashed the middle east/north africa. First of all with Alexander the Great then with the Crusades/reconquista.

What about Europe has much greater access to fertile land, though. I'd say being able to grow more crops and therefore support a larger population, would be an advantage.

[Kronos]

True Capitalism was a European theory--but I think the answer lies in WHY Europeans could come up with that theory.

Capitalism as a theory was necessary as a means to eliminate economic and social turbulence created by feudalism, in general. In this sense, they didn't "come up with it" out of nowhere; it was simply the rational alternative to the current systems.

It has little to do with "race" and more to do with socioeconomic circumstances.

This is historical materialism. Some Marxists call it a dialectical process, which means that human societies evolve according to how social conflicts are best dealt with. A free market capitalism seemed to be a rational "next step" to feudalism and primitive mercantilism.

The extreme conclusion to this historical materialistic process is a perfect state...one which there is no alienation between people. Capitalism is not the final political system, since it produces many conflicts.


Oddly enough your boy Nietzsche knew the answer.


Nietzsche was not certainly not a historical materialist and cared nothing about democracy. In many ways he was anti-capitalism. An aristocratic fascism was his political ideal, but his views were coercive, meaning many of his political ideals clashed with others. He was no politician or economist.


But why were the W M Europeans able to develop the technology? Where did all the money come from--all the technology? Surely the plains of Europe weren't any more fertile than the plains of America or Asia or southern Africa. Surely there weren't any more mineral resources. Why were the white male Europeans better able to exploit what they had better than other peoples in other places?

You can't narrow down an answer like you prefer. These terms are the result of a long series of gradual technological "variable" conditions. When certain technologies are invented they advance the economic strength of the country in which they were invented. Things like the steam engine, railroad, electricity, etc., were instrumental in the great industrial leaps that Europe experienced.

In the shortest words, the Europeans "appropriated" the available resources better and faster than neighboring countries.

And "money" was invented as well...it didn't "come from somewhere".


Well, America wasn't discovered--there were plenty of people living here already.

Tribalism was it. The American continent consisted of scattered tribes with little to no technology.

[Unicorn]

I haven't read the book, but I saw a documentary that Jarred Diamond did based on it. It really was fantastic.
Jared Diamond is a bourgeois hack. His arguments have been demolished by Marxist authors. See this editorial in Science and Society:
http://www.scienceandsociety.com/editorial_sum03.html

[Sir Comradical]

I haven't read the book, but I saw a documentary that Jarred Diamond did based on it. It really was fantastic.

What about Europe has much greater access to fertile land, though. I'd say being able to grow more crops and therefore support a larger population, would be an advantage.

The important thing about that documentary is that it made the basic assumption that all humans are essentially the same in terms of intelligence and capability. The stuff in bold was pretty much the crux of his argument. I wonder if there have been any criticisms of Diamond's theory.

[Killfacer]

yes but if you look at parts of America, especially on the coast, land is fertile enough. Not fertile land does not explain why white christians have dominated world politics. First of all i think its important to point out that while white christians have dominated for a long time, there have been other centers of power. I beleive that white christians gained their superiority over Africa/America for socio-economic reasons (i know i slagged off Kronos for saying it but he/she is right) but Europe certainly had no advantage over the middle east/egypt. Egypt had hugely fertile lands in the nile delta and if anything the middle east had the advantage of being home to the longest established civilisations. Obviously through a series of brutal and bloody wars (first against Persia, then against the Arabs and moors), europe became dominate. This created europes economic/military/technological superiority over the rest of world as it destroyed the only other "race" which was well enough positioned to offer any kind of resistance.

[bcbm]

Jared Diamond is a bourgeois hack. His arguments have been demolished by Marxist authors. See this editorial in Science and Society:
http://www.scienceandsociety.com/editorial_sum03.html

That article isn't demolishing his argument. It is saying he neglected certain things and it seeks to help add to the analysis and discourse around it. :rolleyes: