
Originally Posted by
rkspsm
I hope that wont be needed, cuz we are merely asserting over past. I believe racism is saying a group cannot do X. I am never saying that. I might only be saying havent done X or have scored lower in X in the past. And I welcome any correction, either in the facts or in my interpretation of racism if mods think that is the case.
In that post you refer too, I never said that we were likely to win or superior in any way. Fighting till death refers to trying your best, but its not necessary that you will win. Here again I will say, nature has no notion of fairness. Your case can be justified, you might try your best, and still get defeated very badly. In animal kingdom this happens all the time.
Before moving forward, let me more clearly define superiority, which I will refer to explaining furthur of your criticisms (and I will write why this criteria, in the end). I will consider something superior with respect to a market. If there is a demand for something, and you supply that service, commodity, then in that market you are superior. If there is no market for that, then that is not the superiority I am talking about.
Secondly, the market/demand can exist at any level of society, not just individual. In fact I'll often refer to market at civilization level.
So first is violence. Yes violence has demand, always had demand, everywhere in world and at every point in history. Even if we look past the humans, into the animal world, violence has demand. Sometimes preys are save themselves from violence or threat it. So yeah, according to my definition of superiority, ability to supply superior violence, does makes you superior.
Yes, I am referring to post renaissance world. And because of exactly the property you mentioned (very small human lifespan), the markets in the current world will be more affected by recent events. Which means the farther back you go, the less relevant it becomes in determining who will meet more demand in any market (eg: violence).
Otherwise we can go a lot back... and I believe if I remember correctly, all the current europeans actually originated from some region in central asia. The older natives of europe are no longer there, they became extinct. Dont quote me on this, this is just to highlight that the nearer some event is to present, the more its likely to determine the market superiority.
I'll first address technology, then on art. Again, I am merely focusing on markets, which means nearer past becomes way more important. I am not denying your points on ancient African civilizations like Egypt, and there were even more lesser known ones, but it wont matter today as a market. Africa is not the one selling tech expertise better than current Europe, and the disparity was a lot worse before information age in the post renaissance world. I am not referring to any televised sources of backwater Africa, I am referring to inventions of machines, discovery of mathematical concepts, discovery in modern laws of physics, etc. In post renaissance world, any list you make, Europe is going to beat rest of the world, combined, most likely. And even if I have to give a casual example from my own direct and frequent experience, its not television. Its simply any math or physics book I read. I am continuously bombarded with formulas and concepts named after people who are europeans (and white).
Though, just to be clear on this, from technology I mean capability to invent or create something new, NOT the capability to use or provide cheap labor.
Now on arts and culture. Against violence and technology, this point is weaker I agree and more open to personal preferences. But still, today's arts and culture market is quite tied to technology, and sometimes the art may REQUIRE a technology. Say making a 3D model of something. Or making special effects in a movie/film. Or even in discovering novel ways designing something, say UI. Though I already concede its a weak point, I am not going to expand too much on it.
When we say "fat" to a person with an intention of insulting them, we dont really mean Dwayne Johnson type of fat. I can refer to example of this word : "motherfker". We can say to our friends, in friendly way : "hey motherfker !", and its not insulting, its humor. But we can also use this in an insulting way, say in a phrase : "you pathetic retarded motherfker !". Now that second phrase is a whole other thing. Same is with fat (or the N word). The context is often sufficient to add to the words, which can be quite intended by the one saying (or writing) it.
Exactly !
Regardless of how we view women or society in general in terms of their ridiculousness of ideas, the markets are still generated by them. For a man who is going to "sell" himself on sexual market, women are the buyers, and unfortunately, they will set the standard. But in general, any entity can be market, not just women. The usage of market as measuring device for superiority, allows me to devise strategies where, if I am superior in some regard, I can exchange it for something I desire but lack of.
I'll say this as a closing point, almost nothing you wrote I find wrong, in fact I already knew that. I know (generally) about past civilizations which were of non-european origin. But our major point of disagreement (I think), is how we tend to define things. I never use meanings and definitions which I "think" should be appropriate. I need some objective criteria. Something which is open to falsification and to Occam's Razor. Falsification guarantees that the description wont survive any unexplained counter evidence. And Occam's Razor (simplicity, minimizing the number of transactions) guarantees that if I use that theory to chalk out some plan or build some machine, its number of weak points are minimum.
An example I give at the end. Some Indians think that Wright brothers didnt invent airplanes, it was some Indians. They think that it was just stolen and then written off as invented by them (Wright Brothers). Now I dont have any evidence to deny that (thus I cannot apply falsification). Maybe they are true. But, if I belong to that time period when airplane was invented, and I need some expertise on airplanes, where will I go to buy that expertise (applying the concept of markets) ? I'll go to Wright Brothers because its based on only one assumption (that they invented airplanes). If I go to Indians, then I will based on TWO assumptions (Wright Brothers stolen it AND Indians invented it).