Reply With Quote
Pre-1863 America, Kool.
Those were the days
White people/ tea partiers, what do you mean when you say this or hear this. Colored people/ liberals want to know...
Pre-1863 America, Kool.
Those were the days
Let's say the situation was reversed. Let's say instead of whites, it was blacks who had geographic history on their side and it was they, not whites, who developed and leveraged guns, germs and steel to technologically and economically dominate the world and enslave whites. In this hypothetical situation, would blacks have eventually freed their white slaves?
Last edited by pikkiwoki; 05-25-2013 at 07:23 AM.
an impossible scenario, whites developed their technology and superiority due to the harsh northern climates that made them white. Africans didn't develop said tech because they never had to.
white ppl are in for a rough ride.
enjoy it while it last white ppl. it's coming. and soon
but hypothetically if blacks, instead of whites, by some confluence of historical cir stances did develop said tech, would they have freed their white slaves, like whites eventually freed their black slaves?
philosoraptor wants to know.
Advanced technology, culture, and civilization occurred roughly 6,000 years ago in Mesopotamia where it is not very cold.
if the cir stances were the same I say yes. There would have been some like the south that didnt want to, but natural progression Demands it. The US would not be what it is today if slavery still existed. Slaves aren't allowed to own land or even pursue wealth. Slavery destroys capitalism because if you're a slave you have no incentive to invent things or create businesses that would eventually propel the prosperity of a person and in turn a country. I would even say that slavery is a form of communism, except on an individual scale. You're only depending on the slave masters to come up with all the technology and business's which makes the 20 century impossible.
Yes. The reasoning is as follows. The development of said technology allows for a leisure class to exist, who have the free time to contemplate existence, and all that that entails. If you acknowledge that blacks are simply humans with a higher melanin count in the epidermis layer of their skin, then you have two options. Either melanin has some influence on how one would "contemplate existence," or it doesn't. There seems to be no justification for the former, so let's assume the latter, in which case there would be no reason to assume that the content of their "contemplating existence" would be materially different from groups with a lower melanin count in the epidermis layer of their skin. What we know from our knowledge of history is that when a leisure class exists, who are to some degree free from the everyday struggles for existence, some number of that leisure class will develop notions of tolerance, and in general the tenets of humanism. That is because those tenets are based upon empirical values, which are not based upon any ideology, but instead on what can be asserted based upon observations from sense data. And we also know that such speculation is very attractive to the working class, as it's a way of mitigating the hold on power of the upper classes. So, once developed, such notions spread amongst a large and large percentage of the population, eventually leading to the flowering of democratic ideals and a notion of our shared humanity, which find the existence of slavery as untenable. Which will eventually convince any developed society of human beings to outlaw slavery, regardless of the level of melanin count in the epidermis layers of the members of said society.
Greece can't be said to be a "harsh norther climate," and that's where an empirical outlook was first developed by Democritus; an empirical outlook is extremely fundamental to scientific work. And Italy can't be said to be a "harsh norther climate," and that's where Galileo did his observational work in astronomy, which brought back into legitimacy an empirical outlook that had floundered for centuries under the reign of a Christian Platonism which had dismissed evidence from the senses as any kind of legitimate source of knowledge. And the middle east can't be said to be a "harsh northern climate," but that's where all the knowledge of Greek science and mathematics were kept alive while the Christian religion ran roughshod over empiricism in the medieval period in the West. So really, the notion that "whites developed their technology and superiority due to the harsh northern climates" is maybe fit for school children, who don't know any better, but it's certainly not an accurate description of what actually happen.
Exactly. Slavery is counterproductive to a society's growth, sustainability and evolution. You don't get some of the technology of today if the inventors were slaves. You can maybe argue that the 20 century could've happened in the 19th century had slavery not existed then.
I think there's an even better argument that the "20th century" would have happened in, I don't know, the 2nd? 5th? 10th? century, if Plato and Christ had never existed. Seriously.
Greece can't be said to be a "harsh norther climate," and that's where an empirical outlook was first developed by Democritus; an empirical outlook is extremely fundamental to scientific work. And Italy can't be said to be a "harsh norther climate," and that's where Galileo did his observational work in astronomy, which brought back into legitimacy an empirical outlook that had floundered for centuries under the reign of a Christian Platonism which had dismissed evidence from the senses as any kind of legitimate source of knowledge. And the middle east can't be said to be a "harsh northern climate," but that's where all the knowledge of Greek science and mathematics were kept alive while the Christian religion ran roughshod over empiricism in the medieval period in the West. So really, the notion that "whites developed their technology and superiority due to the harsh northern climates" is maybe fit for school children, who don't know any better, but it's certainly not an accurate description of what actually happen.
You mentioned Gallileo, he and Homer, pythagerous, and other Greek scholar actually gained their knowledge from the libraries in Kemet. Of course, as white people have always done, they stole knowledge and didnt give credit to the originators. But you inadvertently have a point. A lot of the worlds knowledge comes from Africa, the Middle East, and eastern Asia. Not the northern climates.
but they were all white, and they were more north than where they got their slaves from. OP is using this country as his topic so I'm just restrciting my whites to the whites that founded this countryGreece can't be said to be a "harsh norther climate," and that's where an empirical outlook was first developed by Democritus; an empirical outlook is extremely fundamental to scientific work. And Italy can't be said to be a "harsh norther climate," and that's where Galileo did his observational work in astronomy, which brought back into legitimacy an empirical outlook that had floundered for centuries under the reign of a Christian Platonism which had dismissed evidence from the senses as any kind of legitimate source of knowledge. And the middle east can't be said to be a "harsh northern climate," but that's where all the knowledge of Greek science and mathematics were kept alive while the Christian religion ran roughshod over empiricism in the medieval period in the West. So really, the notion that "whites developed their technology and superiority due to the harsh northern climates" is maybe fit for school children, who don't know any better, but it's certainly not an accurate description of what actually happen.
I think there's an even better argument that the "20th century" would have happened in, I don't know, the 2nd? 5th? 10th? century, if Plato and Christ had never existed. Seriously.
If all humans did was focus 100% of their energy in science, then you're probably right.
Well, there's no records that exist that detail what do ents existed in Alexandria, but what we do know is that the Egytians got their knowledge of mathematics from the Babylonians, and that the Babylonians can only really be said to have developed rules of thumb, they were not responsible for the invention of mathematical deduction. That was invented by the Greeks, which is an unassailable fact. So you're statement speaks to your own biases on the subject, and is not an accurate description of what actually happened. The Arabs, though they possessed their own high level of culture, were not innovators, but instead "merely" collectors and maintainers of knowledge.
Well, there's no records that exist that detail what do ents existed in Alexandria, but what we do know is that the Egytians got their knowledge of mathematics from the Babylonians, and that the Babylonians can only really be said to have developed rules of thumb, they were not responsible for the invention of mathematical deduction. That was invented by the Greeks, which is an unassailable fact. So you're statement speaks to your own biases on the subject, and is not an accurate description of what actually happened. The Arabs, though they possessed their own high level of culture, were not innovators, but instead "merely" collectors and maintainers of knowledge.
Geometry, the foundation for mathematics was developed and studied in Egypt. Not Greece. I know it doesn't fit your agenda, even Pythagorous acknowledged that he studied and developed his theorem in Africa. Africans were astrologist thousands of years before Greece became 1 city state. They used mathmatecis to Navigate the oceans and desert and to sustain a viable banking and trade system.
Ya, but why should we limit our inquiry to the vagaries of the OP's biases and assumptions? The abolitionists in this country used an empirical outlook to reach their conclusions that blacks are humans just like them, and that empirical outlook was maintained and developed, sometimes at great personal peril, by men of science, who represented a minority community through a history filled with exponentially more barbarous examples of humanity who held power. It is not possible to draw a definite line, prior to which this development is not relevant to more modern concerns.
Further proof, look at the pyramids built 5,000 years before whites crawled out of their caves in the baltics. Architectural is based on geometric fundementals developed in Egypt.
/thread
Religion is like a huge ball and chain on the leg of progress.
Less religion and more science will propel us to the stars.
Well, I'm not interested in educating random strangers on the internet, just know that what you assert is not based upon the rigorous scholarship that exists on the subject. It would be just as wrong to say that the Babylonians had no mathematical knowledge as it would be to say that the Greeks were not responsible for significant innovations in the subject. I'll just quote Bertrand Russell on the subject, so you know who you're contending with: "Arithmetic and some geometry existed among the Egyptians and Babylonians, but mainly in the form of rules of thumb. Deductive reasoning from general premisses was a Greek innovation." If you want to challenge Russell be my guest.
There are huge earthworks in the British Isles that predate those pyramids by thousands of years. White people built them.
If America is so racist, why not just go back to Africa?
A prime example of a statement made by someone with no knowledge of mathematics. It's not exactly untrue, as some rules of thumb of geometry are of course necessary for the building of such amazing monuments. But it shows a complete lack of knowledge of the HUGE gap between such rules of thumb, and a rigorous, systematized knowledge of deductive reasoning. Let me put it in terms you should be able to understand. The difference between the level of geometrical knowledge of the Egyptians and Euclid is equivalent to the difference in level of quality of basketball between this season's Lakers, and Spurs. In other words, A HUGE MASSIVE ING DIFFERENCE.
Last edited by capek; 05-25-2013 at 09:57 AM.
Who is HUGH? Is he HUGE?A prime example of a statement made by someone with no knowledge of mathematics. It's not exactly untrue, as some rules of thumb of geometry are of course necessary for the building of such amazing monuments. But it shows a complete lack of knowledge of the HUGE gap between such rules of thumb, and a rigorous, systematized knowledge of deductive reasoning. Let me put it in terms you should be able to understand. The difference between the level of geometrical knowledge of the Egyptians and Euclid is equivalent to the difference in level of quality of basketball between this season's Lakers, and Spurs. In other words, A HUGH MASSIVE ING DIFFERENCE.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
