Why are majority Caucasian countries doing so well in almost all positive aspects of society compared to the rest of the world(barring the oil empire when it comes to wealth)?

152 views

Why are majority Caucasian countries doing so well in almost all positive aspects of society compared to the rest of the world(barring the oil empire when it comes to wealth)?

In: 0

10 Answers

Anonymous 0 Comments

The answer is really well explained by your question itself. “Why are majority Caucasian countries doing so well.” Caucasian means people from the Caucasus which is this region (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasus). The caucuses have not been dominant for a few years since the fall of the Soviet Union. Even more so since the decline of the Ottoman Empire.

But I’m guessing you weren’t thinking about the Turks when you asked your question. You meant it as the coloquial “white people” term used in America. So why have *white* people been so dominant? Well first we need to understand what you mean by white people. Are Ukrainians white? Are Greeks white? Are Italians white? You probably said yes to all of these but that answer is uniquely American and modern. You don’t have to go back very far in history to see Italians, Irish, and residents of the balkans being deliberately called out as non-white.

Okay fine! Western European countries. Well that one is easy. The period of Western European dominance was around 1500 to 1800, a period of about 300 years. The Spanish and Portuguese began exploring for trade routes and were able to conquer the sub-Saharan African and Americas because of the introduction of gun powder and modern military tactics to a region which had never been exposed to these. The natural resources of the conquered land allowed them to build vast empires but eventually they ceded their land and power to other European powers like France, Britain, and Germany.

Oh, France, Britain, and Germany are included? Well their star was really from the mid 1700’s to the early 1900s. While falling behind the Portuguese and Spanish originally, they used the Industrial Revolution to exceed the power of the Spanish and conquer far reaching lands all across the world. But internal fighting resulted in the loss of their empires in the World Wars and relinquishing their control to the United States and the USSR.

Oh you want America to be included in “Western European?” Even though it is an entirely different continent? But it is one of the most diverse countries in the world. Why are we defining it as European? Well if you insist… it’s industrial power was combined with opportunistic financing of the World Wars to see the American government rise to a super power level. Now it appears to be ceding much of its power and influence to China.

The truth is that over the course of “Caucasian dominance” different groups rose and fell constantly. We define the entire period like it is the same group of people but it distinctly is not. It’s circular to just define Caucasian dominance as whatever region is currently in control. We think white people are dominant because we unintentionally redefine history to meet our preconceived notions. All regions in the world have periods of rising and falling strength. We think of one period of time which different European countries have been in power for a long time. That period is over and has been for 100 years.

Anonymous 0 Comments

Whoever industrialized the United States was going to become the world super power regardless of race. The United States has an amazing abundance of natural resources compares to the rest of the world.

Not only does the U.S. have the most fertile farmland, and incredible fossil fuel reserves, it also has natural deep water ports and more navigable water ways than the rest of the world combined.

Anonymous 0 Comments

Some of it is chance. The period when Europeans started colonizing other lands took place after the advent of gunpowder was driving rapid development of military technologies in Europe. This fact meant that European powers had a significant military advantage when they encountered people from the other lands even if those countries were already well-developed. In the case of the Americas, European diseases also devastated native populations and disrupted their societies, rendering them easy pickings for Europeans. At most times, China easily had the strength and unity to withstand colonization, but the time when European colonizers were first in sustained contact with China was coincidentally a period of instability in China due to internal problems within the Ming dynasty. In essence, the normally-strong Chinese were having a bad couple years, and this fact put them at enough of a disadvantage that they could not assert their interests at a time when they most needed to do exactly that. Incidentally, the humiliation China felt during this time is also the reason modern China is so determined to regain what it sees as its proper position at the center of world affairs.

Anonymous 0 Comments

Loaded question… but I get the gist of what you’re asking. History is rarely clear to interpret. Here are some candidate answers to consider:

1. Imperialism and slavery – Western European powers grew by colonizing. This means they amassed resources – people, land, raw materials – in an asymmetrical relationship where those resources went to benefiting the colonizers. Imagine playing poker, but you get ten hands instead of one.

2. Renaissance and Enlightenment – cultural and scientific movements in Western Europe which encouraged and facilitated exchange of ideas and information. This spurned many new developments in arts, religion, commerce, and literature; and this led later to a sort of revolution in science and technology. Both the former and latter are great multipliers of a civilization’s clarity of thought and sense of value.

3. Industrial Revolution – the clarity of rational thought from the Enlightenment set the stage for the Industrial Revolution. Starting from Great Britain, this movement united science and technology and produced machines, processes, ways of harnessing natural power. We went from single-worker hand production to multi-worker factory production aided by machines, water and electrical power. This was a major explosion in the scale of human productivity.

4. Agriculture – up to the Bronze Age, this is probably the single most important driver of human civilization. The more food a civilization can sustain, the more people, which means more labor and more productivity. Few factors influence this – quality of arable land, agricultural technologies, and managerial systems. On the whole, Europe had a decent combination of all these factors.

Putting it together, my opinion is this is a plausible story: after the fall of the Romans, Europe was in a good place agriculturally – though not all periods were good periods, they had the systems to support a sizable population in bad times and fuel a growing population in good times. This is the same condition other major civilizations needed (eg Mesopotamia or contemporary Central China). Europe was also connected enough by roads (courtesy of the Romans) and waterways that allowed for a wide exchange of ideas leading up to Renaissance and Enlightenment. The Enlightenment was somewhat unique to Europe – we still today attribute modern scientific methods to this period of European history. At the same time, partially also because Europe was not a single united entity, there was plenty of wars and economic/other competition. This equipped Western Europe with the knowledge/ability to go forth and conquer for almost four hundred years leading up to modern times. This was both somewhat unique to Europe (in scale) and a major boost in the concentration of power. This then started and also fueled the subsequent Industrial Revolution, which required a different scale of certain types of materials, like iron, coal, rubber. Arguably the beneficiaries of the Industrial Revolution are exactly the ones you’re referring to in the question – it reshaped societies and was the original rubric of “developed vs developing” country. And today some of those same beneficiaries had a better hand going into the game of globalization; and the ones who didn’t get into that game still had a wealthy starting point.

I mentioned slavery earlier – how does it fit into the story? I will say the above story can be told without mention of slavery, but that’s not to say slavery wasn’t a major story in itself – for almost three hundred years this was a part of global commerce and labor. Europe was the show runners in the Atlantic slave trade — some of which resulted in European labor, a lot of which resulted in labor for the New World (the Americas). The relatively bigger benefit was from the commerce rather than from the labor. This benefit directly resulted in wealth. However the reason I didn’t include it in the above story is that on a relative scale this wasn’t the major factor in European wealth, compared to things like industrialization; it arguably is a much larger factor in American wealth, but that’s not the question discussed here. I brought it up because you might read this as a major factor in some other sources – not saying they’re wrong, just in my opinion not the major factor.

Anonymous 0 Comments

There are a few reasons and it’s hard to summarize them. For starters European countries built large militaries and exported their dominance to much of the world, called imperialism and colonization. They were able to extract riches and resources from other parts of the world and take them home. This gave them an incredible “head start” if you will at the same time limiting the growth and development opportunities for their colonies. They displaced significant populations in various ways including warfare and the slave trade.

On top of that the industrial revolution originated in the west and the results and advantages of it were disproportionately in the west. It could be because the west was less interested in exporting industry, and some places were resistant to receiving it.

A few typical prerequisites for significant economic development include a relative degree of domestic peace and stability and also a somewhat literate population. Development these days looks different than it did before, because nobody is inventing machine looms from scratch. People have to learn and there has to be investment which is not cheap. Countries like Japan, South Korea, and Singapore had a different roadmap to development than say UAE or South Africa. Some years ago India and China had a lot in common, but China took of with its development while India has not.

There are a lot of downsides that can come with economic progress, while the standard of living goes up, and opportunities for individual accomplishment goes up as well, families tend to drift apart, urbanization rises and so can crime, and suicide. Among others.

Good luck

Anonymous 0 Comments

Because of culture of free destiny.

The thing is that thouthands years ago this concept was forgotten (in constant attempt to survive famines) or not developed at all. For peoples only king had its own destiny ithers did not. Its hugely represented in absence of recorded names for non royal people. It is extremely rare artifact to find generals names, king teacher names etc. After Hellenistic culture spread individual horoscopes became a really popular thing.

Than ancient greeks Hellenics comes developed concept that anyone might become anything. Slave can become a king. It is a chalange to find such stories in other culture, while greeks had a tons of them.

Those ideas were spread by Alexander the great to east. Through he had not reached china and thus Hellenistic ideas have not settled there.

As free destiny concept spreaded people started to demand more and more policies to improve wellbeing of common folks. That also gave push to forming of democracic states. Yet for many reasons democratic states had problems with regime sustainability, but over countless trials they developed required technologies and now democracy is a dominant political form of rulling.

So the ling story short – development if democracy improved common folks wellbeing as ut allowed them to ask for particular changes

Anonymous 0 Comments

~~A lot of caucasian-inhabited land was – because of climate – really good for farming back in the day when farming was just more difficult in general. That lower barrier meant that keeping people alive and fed was less of a headache, allowing for more time spent basically just colonising.~~

Edit: Nope, this isn’t the case. Ignore me and my school teacher from many years ago.

Anonymous 0 Comments

[deleted]

Anonymous 0 Comments

Loaded question. Don’t look so hot right now.

How’s your paycheck handling the inflation? Is your landlord upping the rent?

Anonymous 0 Comments

Historically, its the effects of Imperialism and slavery. Much of which is still in effect today.

Currently, more “developed” nations magnify their advantage with the current system of globalization and unforgiving capitalization.

In a single word the the answer is Greed.