Whenever I see these people who talk about the need for white power (under whatever name) in North America, I’m offended.
If you want to defend the white world, go back to Europe. If you want to defend “Anglo-Saxon civilization,” go back to England or something. When I was a kid, you’d sometimes hear, “go back to Africa,” directed at “blacks” (who probably had more indigenous North American ancestry than the whites saying it). Why not go back to Europe if your lily white whiteness is so important to you? Seriously, how many continents do white people need?
Well, Europe is currently being overrun by towelheads and sand niggers, too, you know. Them eeevil Muslims breed just like flies. Poor, poor Aryans, they don’t even have one continent they can call their own. Clearly taking a last-ditch stand in Idaho is the white race’s only hope!
(Need I add there aren’t enough eyerolls in the Universe to describe what I think of this so-called “thought”?)
If you were to ask such an Aryan / White Power advocate, I suspect the answer would be along the lines that European whites had become a race of weak faggoty socialists, allowing Muslims to take over their nations, and thus unworthy of bearing the standard of Anglo-Saxon civilization. But, that’s just a guess.
It was always a race – an arms race, really. Whoever industrialized first was going to colonize the world. “Manifest destiny” without the moral context: simply a fact of history. The Chinese might well have pulled it off. The Aztecs, not so likely. The Zuni are right out.
You’re taking issue with human nature. Give European civilization a little credit, for learning some of the lessons of colonialism, and (gradually and reluctantly) withdrawing from it, permitting self-rule to flourish.
England is for the Celts. Or the Picts. The Angles and the Saxons should go back to the continent, to that little Angle of a land and Saxony (or wherever the Saxons came from).
I agree with BrainGlutton; it wasn’t human nature. Not all societies are equally expansionistic or aggressive. Quite a few societies simply wouldn’t have bothered to create such worldwide empires; it wouldn’t have interested them. Nor have most societies felt the same need to remake everyone into a copy of themselves Christian/Islamic style; even if they’d gone out and conquered, they wouldn’t have bothered with cultural imperialism.
I’d love to be European. They are more civilized than us Americans.
But to answer your question, we had the best weapons, the best technology and he who has the gold makes the rules. But fret not, in this century the east asians will eat all our lunch. Supposedly by 2050 the economy of China will be as big as the EU & US combined (70 trillion).
That is assuming China maintains its levels of growth, no idea if that’ll happen.
It also would have meant a lack of moral universalism and as a result little care for human rights violations, racism, sexism, slavery, binding of women’s feet etc. in other countries.
Oh please; the Europeans slaughtered and enslaved their way across the world, and their “morality” was no better and often worse than that of the local people. Some bunch of conquistadores didn’t care about human rights; they cared about looting, destroying, raping, enslaving and killing.
True, but they also cared about saving souls; the conquistador cleared the path for the missionary. Imperialism was often schizophrenic like that. As Orwell wrote in 1942: