I’m curious about these ,“four countries”. What ones do you have in mind? From post 114.
4 is over optimistic,
The fist colonial states were Spain and Portugal, soon joined by France, England and Netherlands.
Belgium, Italy and Germany were late comers, but took a nice share.
Danemark colonized Groenland.
Japan came also to help itself.
And don’t forget that historically, China, Russia and USA were colonial states. They expanded to very large territories from small bases.
The case of Prussia is special as Teutonic knights colonized Slavic territories.
Suede got some crumbs
2 Likes
The meaning of “indigenous” is changing, it could use some updating. It’s hard to trace all the way back to earliest homo sapien sapiens in any geograpahic area. Native Americans, Australia, Island nations, but something like China, went from that ancient migration to gun powder and dynasties before much contact with “The West”.
I think USSR gobbling up neighbors counts though. China has the Uyghurs. To me, the principle should be, you don’t get to take something from the land where people have lived long enough establish a distinct culture. This is regardless of their form of economics or ownership or ability to govern themselves.
New Zealand is a good modern case, where we have documentation on the treaty that was used to claim the land and designate the people who had a historical claim as having less rights.
1 Like
Russia began well before USSR, as the great duchy of Moscow, after Mongols invasions. It gobbled up to part of Poland and whole Ukraine, and up to the Pacific.
Russian growth up to the half of the 18th century
Curiously, after an initial phase of expansion, china expanded and contracted until the Mandchous conquered it.
But the minorities were mistreated, and not only the Tibetans and the Ouighours.
When liberals talk about the West conquering “indigenous peoples” they mean non-Europeans. That means only four nations fit that depiction:
USA
Canada
Australia
New Zealand
If it were 50 years ago, South Africa could be on the list, but they’re no longer controlled by Whites. And Latin America is not Western.
Europeans conquering each other doesn’t count as true oppression to the liberal.
I didn’t see this before responding to Morgankane’s post about the same thing, but the 4 nations are USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. In the past, I would’ve put South Africa on the list as well because it was a Western nation built on “indigenous territory” but it’s not run by Whites anymore.
I take a longer view of “The West” I guess. I would include historical colonialization. I would include South Africa which is originally the British Empire. I don’t know how you leave them off, they conquered nations and called them their own over the entire world. Spain was their rival. Both of them put flags in the Americas and said God told them to. India was run like a company by Britian until Ghandi. New Zealand was also British rule at first.
Even in that time, there were people from those countries who did not agree with this practice, and eventually they quit expanding, but that was also due to the second generation of colonizers they had spawned. USA being the most obvious. Russia developed as an empire alongside Europe and I’m not completely clear on how much of that was due to British influence. Anyway, yes, it’s all of Europe, they were the Holy Roman Empire and the Hapsburg Dynasty. They anointed their first born sons as ultimate rulers, and serfs and peasants were second class, and they told their daughters who to marry so they could maintain their alliances. That’s not progress.
Kinda off the main thread, but there was also the Muslim empire that had a mission to take over the world. It did pretty well until the Mongols came along. When you go back to the 13th century or so, it gets a little fuzzy. For example, I don’t think of the Vikings as a modern nation taking over a vulnerable population. Nor do I think of them as superior to the people they conquered or plundered. Winning wars isn’t a good indicator of superior intellect, culture, or evidence they are advanced or whatever else it is you are trying to say.
1 Like
Is being controlled by whites important?
Let’s wait and see what type of benign government that brings.
Even id south Africa is no more controlled by Whites, it has been an European colony for 2 centuries roughly
Of course. It’s a big predictor of success for a country.
Obviously Britain is Western, but that’s not the issue.
You said this:
The only Western countries where Europeans oppressed indigenous populations are the four I listed – USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
The final nail in the coffin for most European empires was WW2. A fact of human nature is nobody ever gives up power voluntarily. In Russia’s case, they were an empire for a long time – even after their monarchy was eliminated – and the Soviet Union was an empire in effect. As for progress, it has occurred in many empires. Darwin and Newton both did their work while living under an imperial flag, for example. Slavery became illegal under the British empire. There’s a lot of this throughout history.
One-off victories in war are not necessarily a sign of superiority, but repeated military success is.
Do liberals do this merry go round? You never established what success is but you come back to saying wherever whites are in charge, it’s success. Somehow, liberal whites live there too and the revolutions of the late 1700’s established the governments that are still quite successful and those led by liberals, but somehow, liberals are a problem. I try to acknowledge that it’s complicated and I wouldn’t have the advantages I do without capitalism, so anyway.
That depends on what you call success. Are invasive species successful to the local environment?
Are they having a good time? They look very successful, no?
Unfortunately everything else in that lake is dead! They ate it.
Then they will eat each other.
They eat young carp
Copilot:
Carp are predatory fish that eat other fish. They eat young carp and juvenile grass carp1. In commercial fisheries, carp are often accustomed to eating pellets from a young age2.
Since race is something made up by racists like you, can you help me understand who is white? Are Chinese white? Arabs? Or does white equal WASP?
How can Chinese be White?? 
White means European decent. Yes, I know US government says MENA are White as well, but that has always been controversial, and the government has taken some steps to change it.
Bad analogy. We aren’t like carp at all. Nor do we live in an environment where everything else is dead.
The first, and main thing a country has to do to be successful is produce a good standard of living. The population has to want to live there. Other important things are being able to defend itself, and producing something the rest of the world admires.
I never said every White country is successful – Ukraine and Kosovo are two that come to mind right away – just that overall, White-run countries are better.
As for liberalism, it has changed over time. The liberals of 400 years ago were a different beast from today’s liberals. Even the liberalism of 60s was different from the liberalism of 1930s.
Right we always move to where “the grass is greener” and kill what’s there.
The only species that can compete with us aside from viruses are insects.
There are only 2 species that are on the increase, humans andinsects.
Where man can alter the environment, the insect can adapt to whatever man can change.
The insect has withstood 5 major extincton events. Man may well suffer extinction from the 6th manmade extinction event. The Holocene extinction
If you think the Caliornia fires were bad, you ain’t seen nothing yet. Nature is capable of creating unimaginable forces when correcting unbalanced conditions.
Remember the last tsunami that killed some 230.000 people in a single day?
A little tectonic shift of the planet’s crust caused that calamity.
Oh they can’t be, of course. It’s just that their success seems to go against your theory that a society run by whites is a big predictor of success.
In fact your theory seems to ignore many important factors. The greatest source of ignorance in your theory is just how much “whites” destroy. In your warped worldview, this is actually turned into a positive.
The best example of “whites” is corporate america. Nothing on the planet comes close to being as destructive as corporate america. Their greed and concentration on nothing but the bottom line created the largest income inequality in history. They also kill millions with their very profitable weaponry that you credit as “success.” They have created the only health care system on the planet that commonly bankrupts its patients. They lie, cheat, and kill to keep tobacco in the mouths of their customers. They fight every regulation that protects people or the planet if it hurts the business’s bottom line.
You try to blame globalization for all of the world’s ills but globalization is nothing more than an opportunity for corporate america to increase its profits by finding cheaper labor on other shores - and then blaming those governments for our own self inflicted economic and social woes. All while the mega rich here laugh at the poor and tell them that “wokeness” is the reason they are suffering.
And the shift of blame to the customer for corporate sins is a classic. We big corporations can create all of the plastic that is crapping on our future and just blame you for not recycling. We can buy judges and politicians to do whatever we want. Yes, us whites are the most successful of the bunch.
1 Like