Don´t know why i feel so compelled to write this here on a Kink website, but i want my Brain to stop itching, so here goes:

The success of Whites, as in Europeans, comes down to 2 Factors in the Enviroment, namely the Continents small Size and
the Availability of Agriculture, meaning Crops to cultivate AND Livestock to tame.
Since Agriculture is self explaining as the Base of Society, i explain the Benefit of Europes size. That allowed for quick
spreading, both of new Ideas as well as Diseases. And that last one is important, since every Plague that ravaged Europes
People, it took down the weakest, meaning the very Young, and more importantly, the elderly. With those keepers of
"Tradition for Traditions Sake" dying every few Generations, the new Ideas could actually stay around long enough to be
tested in RL, instead of being dismissed outright by the old People in Charge.

I could write more, but the itchiness is gone, so i won´t. Hope this does not bother anyone, sorry if it does.
Hope you still have a nice Day

OmniViceUser said:

Don´t know why i feel so compelled to write this here on a Kink website, but i want my Brain to stop itching, so here goes:

The success of Whites, as in Europeans, comes down to 2 Factors in the Enviroment, namely the Continents small Size and
the Availability of Agriculture, meaning Crops to cultivate AND Livestock to tame.
Since Agriculture is self explaining as the Base of Society, i explain the Benefit of Europes size. That allowed for quick
spreading, both of new Ideas as well as Diseases. And that last one is important, since every Plague that ravaged Europes
People, it took down the weakest, meaning the very Young, and more importantly, the elderly. With those keepers of
"Tradition for Traditions Sake" dying every few Generations, the new Ideas could actually stay around long enough to be
tested in RL, instead of being dismissed outright by the old People in Charge.

I could write more, but the itchiness is gone, so i won´t. Hope this does not bother anyone, sorry if it does.
Hope you still have a nice Day

So basically the stubborn old geezers that were afraid of change kept dying out while change was occurring? I need to brush up on my history more, but that makes a lot of sense

OmniViceUser said:

I could write more, but the itchiness is gone, so i won´t. Hope this does not bother anyone, sorry if it does.
Hope you still have a nice Day

Eurasia is more than twice the size of North America. If less space equals more advanced societies, we'd have seen that in at least North America. As for farming; sugars, buffalo, and deer are more than sufficient if properly cultivated. Also the "old people dying out" excuse doesn't really apply. The natives lived wild, and so most native americans didn't live beyond 40 in the first place. There is no excuse for the poor performance of the natives.

I appreciate your comment though and I hope you have a great day!!!

Nintendoss said:

Eurasia is more than twice the size of North America. If less space equals more advanced societies, we'd have seen that in at least North America. As for farming; sugars, buffalo, and deer are more than sufficient if properly cultivated. Also the "old people dying out" excuse doesn't really apply. The natives lived wild, and so most native americans didn't live beyond 40 in the first place. There is no excuse for the poor performance of the natives.

I appreciate your comment though and I hope you have a great day!!!

Well there was the Aztecs and the Incas... And the Iroquois (or Haudenosaunee if you want to be technical) were just about to establish a proper major settled society when the Europeans showed up. Not to mention all the ones that lived and died out, such as the Maya or Olmec. It's not like Rome still existed... Wait it kind of did... Huh...

Though a counterpoint to the first guy, TF is Christianity then? The Pope? Only after Europe discovered America did the Protestants Reformation go into full swing. People diss on Medieval Europe for that notion, too.

Anyway, cool caption though.

Nintendoss said:

Eurasia is more than twice the size of North America. If less space equals more advanced societies, we'd have seen that in at least North America. As for farming; sugars, buffalo, and deer are more than sufficient if properly cultivated. Also the "old people dying out" excuse doesn't really apply. The natives lived wild, and so most native americans didn't live beyond 40 in the first place. There is no excuse for the poor performance of the natives.

I appreciate your comment though and I hope you have a great day!!!

How to tell me you haven't seen a buffalo without telling me you haven't seen a buffalo.

You've effectively just told the natives to try and domesticate a rhino with even more herd instincts built into it. A buffalo is a walking tank, modern humans have trouble designing enclosures for the things. As for Deer, well it'd be possible... but what's the point? Don't get me wrong, some deer are as strong as the average human if given leverage, but they're built for speed, not strength. They also don't really provide anything other than their horns having some niche use in medicine of the time and of course, meat. You also can't ride a deer, meaning they even aren't that great as transport. Could the deer problem be solved with a healthy dose of eugenics? Of course, but we normally didn't just domesticate animals for the fun of it, they had to provide something even in their wild state. The deer didn't.

As for sugar... yeah, they kinda already did that, twice, they also set up rubber farms that worked better than Henry Ford's own take on it centuries later. It wasn't exactly the plant life side of agriculture that was the problem, the problem was that without any beasts of burden agriculture was not the massive game changer that it was throughout the rest of the world. You didn't have an ox or horse to help with heavy loads, a donkey or horse to help transport heavy loads, or any animals to provide supplemental food stuffs such as milk or eggs.

Then again, Europe didn't actually have all of its agricultural animals at the start either, but then Rome happened and suddenly even animals from China could be brought over and bred for European use a few centuries later. There's a reason everyone in Europe wanted to claim the title of Sucessor to Rome, they were effectively standing on the shoulders of giants throughout their entire history, even when it came to what animals they used as food stuffs/beasts of burden (Then again, Rome itself stood on the shoulders of giants here, since it's presumed a majority of domesticated animals came from the Fertile Crescent).

Anyways, that's all. Thank you all for coming to my ted talk

BestRatBoi said:

Anyways, that's all. Thank you all for coming to my ted talk

We've domesticated buffalo in recent times! It's doable. I'm sure you could selectively breed buffalo to more of a pack animal like an ox if you had some imagination. For deer, they'd make for a great meat farm. Feed em corn, they love that shit. Those two things in combination could solve the majority of problems that the natives ran into. This is not even to speak of the genetic differences between natives and Europeans.

HistoricalMaster said:

Well there was the Aztecs and the Incas... And the Iroquois (or Haudenosaunee if you want to be technical) were just about to establish a proper major settled society when the Europeans showed up. Not to mention all the ones that lived and died out, such as the Maya or Olmec. It's not like Rome still existed... Wait it kind of did... Huh...

Anyway, cool caption though.

None of those civilizations truly came close to the level of technological and societal advancement of a place like Rome.

The (relatively) small size of Europe’s landmass meant closer neighbors.
Closer neighbors means more conflict, which breeds technological innovation.
And, during times of peace, closer neighbors also means much more trade of goods and faster spreading of innovations and tech.
These constant cycles of competition and trade lead to technological innovations build upon each other exponentially to the point that these trades and conflicts were spanning halfway across the world.

The tribes of the american indians did not have to live close to each other. They were not squished between the atlantic and the mediterranean as the europeans were. If there was conflict between two tribes, a tribe simply running away was a valid survival strategy. There was plentiful land viable for farming, with plenty edible plants animals spread across it. All this land was their downfall of the north american tribes, however, as the lack of prolonged conflict and the nomadic nature encouraged by the plains and deserts meant they never settled down and built a real society. They were content with being hunter-gatherer nomads who were still living in deer-skin huts and using stone-tipped spears, never progressing or developing into something more.

In around central america, there was a bit more potential. The aztecs were quite similar to early Rome; A society built upon a central city, who would conquer and absorb the smaller surrounding tribes into its ranks. I can’t help imagine their europe-esque conditions, the close quarters of being 'squished' between two seas, had helped encourage their european-esque behaviors. Of course, it was never meant to be, as they were following in Rome’s footsteps 2000 years too late and they had not even entered the bronze age by the time europeans had come to them with guns in hand.

In the end it was their land and their way of life, the two things the natives held most sacred, that had doomed them. Pitiful.

OmniViceUser said:

Don´t know why i feel so compelled to write this here on a Kink website, but i want my Brain to stop itching, so here goes:

The success of Whites, as in Europeans, comes down to 2 Factors in the Enviroment, namely the Continents small Size and
the Availability of Agriculture, meaning Crops to cultivate AND Livestock to tame.
Since Agriculture is self explaining as the Base of Society, i explain the Benefit of Europes size. That allowed for quick
spreading, both of new Ideas as well as Diseases. And that last one is important, since every Plague that ravaged Europes
People, it took down the weakest, meaning the very Young, and more importantly, the elderly. With those keepers of
"Tradition for Traditions Sake" dying every few Generations, the new Ideas could actually stay around long enough to be
tested in RL, instead of being dismissed outright by the old People in Charge.

I could write more, but the itchiness is gone, so i won´t. Hope this does not bother anyone, sorry if it does.
Hope you still have a nice Day

Well... I've heard reasoning like that before, but it doesn't stand up when you put it to the test. The success of Whites, ultimately, comes from their genetics. Although we can speculate on the reasons for historical success (social anthropologists have no shame in making excuses for the lack of success in lesser races) we can only observe results we have had in the recorded past and in today. Blacks under any circumstance or situation, whether their schools have lots of funding, they get bussed in to a White school, or are raised in a White neighborhood, consistently score much lower grades than White kids. The United States has not learned from the failure of the British colonial attempt to elevate blacks and continues to create programs that are destined to fail simply because blacks are born less intelligent. East Asian and Aryan Indian students, on the other hand, consistently outperform Whites. While it would be easy to blame it on White work ethic being much lower nowadays, it's simply a genetic difference. Japan went from swords and samurai to planes and guns in only a few generations, while there is not a single place in all of Africa where the blacks have built and maintained an impressive and safe city. Again, there is no shortage of excuses to make, but the IQ scores speak for themselves. An average of 100 for White Europeans, around 105 for east asians, and I believe it is in the low 80s for blacks in the United States. When an environment creates the genetics of a people, the genetics do not immediately change when someone moves to a different environment. As they say, "you can take the tiger out of the jungle, but you can't take the jungle out of the tiger." Humans are still animals with emotions and desires, born with genetic traits that shape will their personality and mind as they develop. So I highly disagree with the idea that the success of Whites is due to their environment (As if living in a land with harsh winters is lucking out.) Social anthropology is not a hard science in any regard, and is as much "pseudoscience" as eugenics, because they are both politically motivated. This fairy tale that blacks will eventually be as intelligent and successful as Whites is as absurd as a global communist utopia. While the plague theory seems to be as good of an idea as any other, these sorts of attempted explanations that blatantly disregard genetics and intelligence studies are completely ideologically motivated and without basis in reality. White success comes from White people, not their environment.

Also great work on the caption Nintendoss, even if it isn't my sort of thing I like the way you write.

What's with the essay long comments lol.

Soo much reading, I forgot I was in a porn site and thought I was back in civics class. My eyes hurt.

droctopus said:

Well... I've heard reasoning like that before, but it doesn't stand up when you put it to the test. The success of Whites, ultimately, comes from their genetics. Although we can speculate on the reasons for historical success (social anthropologists have no shame in making excuses for the lack of success in lesser races) we can only observe results we have had in the recorded past and in today. Blacks under any circumstance or situation, whether their schools have lots of funding, they get bussed in to a White school, or are raised in a White neighborhood, consistently score much lower grades than White kids. The United States has not learned from the failure of the British colonial attempt to elevate blacks and continues to create programs that are destined to fail simply because blacks are born less intelligent. East Asian and Aryan Indian students, on the other hand, consistently outperform Whites. While it would be easy to blame it on White work ethic being much lower nowadays, it's simply a genetic difference. Japan went from swords and samurai to planes and guns in only a few generations, while there is not a single place in all of Africa where the blacks have built and maintained an impressive and safe city. Again, there is no shortage of excuses to make, but the IQ scores speak for themselves. An average of 100 for White Europeans, around 105 for east asians, and I believe it is in the low 80s for blacks in the United States. When an environment creates the genetics of a people, the genetics do not immediately change when someone moves to a different environment. As they say, "you can take the tiger out of the jungle, but you can't take the jungle out of the tiger." Humans are still animals with emotions and desires, born with genetic traits that shape will their personality and mind as they develop. So I highly disagree with the idea that the success of Whites is due to their environment (As if living in a land with harsh winters is lucking out.) Social anthropology is not a hard science in any regard, and is as much "pseudoscience" as eugenics, because they are both politically motivated. This fairy tale that blacks will eventually be as intelligent and successful as Whites is as absurd as a global communist utopia. While the plague theory seems to be as good of an idea as any other, these sorts of attempted explanations that blatantly disregard genetics and intelligence studies are completely ideologically motivated and without basis in reality. White success comes from White people, not their environment.

Also great work on the caption Nintendoss, even if it isn't my sort of thing I like the way you write.

Any historian will tell you it was the difference in livestock that caused the vast difference in success. The Native Americans did the best with what they had, but the animals they were surrounded with weren’t suited for growing a society, only maintaining it. This was also why everyone knows about Europeans bringing diseases to the Native Americans and not both ways. Because Europeans had more technology, they made cities. These cities were covered in shit because proper plumbing wasn’t a thing so you just threw it outside. The poor sanitation of the cities along with how close they were led to lots and lots of diseases (like the plague but there were tons of others) that the Europeans grew immunities to. This is why everyone remembers how Native Americans were massacred by European diseases and not the other way. There’s historical reasons for all of this that we know. You’re just saying random things with no real backup.

Still really good caption tho :)

Why was there a serious conversation on this website? Like am I the only one who thinks is weird?

Aenglisc_OverKing said:

Why was there a serious conversation on this website? Like am I the only one who thinks is weird?

I did point it out so yeah kinda weird how essay's are being written

Native bleaching the best

WTFemboy said:

Any historian will tell you it was the difference in livestock that caused the vast difference in success. The Native Americans did the best with what they had, but the animals they were surrounded with weren’t suited for growing a society, only maintaining it. This was also why everyone knows about Europeans bringing diseases to the Native Americans and not both ways. Because Europeans had more technology, they made cities. These cities were covered in shit because proper plumbing wasn’t a thing so you just threw it outside. The poor sanitation of the cities along with how close they were led to lots and lots of diseases (like the plague but there were tons of others) that the Europeans grew immunities to. This is why everyone remembers how Native Americans were massacred by European diseases and not the other way. There’s historical reasons for all of this that we know. You’re just saying random things with no real backup.

The myth of europeans not understanding sanitation and that disease single handedly knocking out the native war machine has been debunked numerous times. These myths are on par with "guns, germs and steel" which has skewed the narrative fairly dishonest.

Nintendoss said:

Eurasia is more than twice the size of North America. If less space equals more advanced societies, we'd have seen that in at least North America. As for farming; sugars, buffalo, and deer are more than sufficient if properly cultivated. Also the "old people dying out" excuse doesn't really apply. The natives lived wild, and so most native americans didn't live beyond 40 in the first place. There is no excuse for the poor performance of the natives.

I appreciate your comment though and I hope you have a great day!!!

I mean to be fair, not only is the Eurasian continent much more useful for developing a society from nothing when you consider the advantages it had over the North American continent like horses, livestock, and crops, but you have to also consider that human growth and development is exponential (consider the difference between the years 1800 and 2000 compared to 10000 BCE and 9800 BCE). Europeans had established themselves in Europe around 45,000 years ago, while people only came to the Americas around 20,000 years ago, a huge advantage. The Aztecs, Incans, and Mayans were great. Sure nothing compared to Rome, but Rome wasn’t exactly great tens of thousands of years before its peak.

It’s also not really true that natives rarely lived beyond 40. It wasn’t uncommon for a native to live beyond 60, even. The misconception comes from the fact that any early society has many people dying in infancy or very young; the ones who survived beyond that often could live beyond 40.

Well...the aztecs and incas were a bit advanced,but i assume that in this caption it's about the natives of us and canada right ? If so then it makes sense