Lighter Skin = Better?

[Gilgamesh]

Eventually a person accumulates enough shit posts vs intelligent posts to merit not taking them seriously in the slightest.

Alright.

Anyway, thing is, the point of the thread, to me, is to get you, the readers, thinking. Really think about it. No doubt most of you agree that Africa is uncivilised, relative to America, so why? Why is that so? Of course, since the question begs you to dwell in a touchy area, you reject it and just label the questioner a racist. That'll make ya' look good to everyone else and you don't have to think thoughts that would potentially make you a racist yourself! Win/win, except actually you're being disingenuous.

People of undeveloped nations are more in-touch with their instincts. I don't mean this in a bad way, they're just more like animals. They react without thinking, but only on instinct, and this isn't necessarily a bad thing.

[Whateverist]

Eventually a person accumulates enough shit posts vs intelligent posts to merit not taking them seriously in the slightest.

Alright.

Anyway, thing is, the point of the thread, to me, is to get you, the readers, thinking. Really think about it. No doubt most of you agree that Africa is uncivilised, relative to America, so why? Why is that so? Of course, since the question begs you to dwell in a touchy area, you reject it and just label the questioner a racist. That'll make ya' look good to everyone else and you don't have to think thoughts that would potentially make you a racist yourself! Win/win, except actually you're being disingenuous.

People of undeveloped nations are more in-touch with their instincts. I don't mean this in a bad way, they're just more like animals. They react without thinking, but only on instinct, and this isn't necessarily a bad thing.

But why do you insist on just pulling shit out of your ass which happens to put you in a good light in response to those questions? Why not make some scholarly effort? Read the book or wank off in private.

[paulpablo]

Mongol empire was larger, as was and still is Russia, unless you include the wet stuff the Britainnia alledgedly ruled.

It wasn't larger, by land mass or by population.

One in four human beings on the planet heiled Caesar. The largest fraction ever to sing god save the queen (ha) was?

I would love to see you show me where you found the information that 1 in 4 people on the planet hieled ceaser. The british empire had a much higher population than the Roman empire. And had more land mass, regardless of this statistic which may be true but I find hard to believe.

The Egyptians invented sails, without which the British could row to India. The Egyptian invented the ox drawn plough, without which the british would scratch out a living with digging sticks, the Egyptians invented paper, parchement, and ink, without which Magna Carta would have been scratched into clay tablets.

Sails, ploughs, paper, vs jet engine, penicillin and the world wide web.

They were powerful enough to still be a leading civilization in the hotbed of world's civilizations 2000 years after they built pyramids. 500 years after Britain first acquired a navy, she is about to be disappear into oblivion.

You don't get points in civilization for being around a long time, you get points for the things I previously mentioned, countries taken over, wars won, technology, empire size and so on.

[thesummerqueen]

@ Gilg

You have absolutely no idea what I think about it, do you? Obviously I think his statement is racist as fuck, overgeneralized, and calculated to upset people. Wouldn't that mean I don't necessarily think that whites are the end-all-be-all?

I don't find the subject touchy at all - in fact, I find very few topics touchy in the first place. What I reject is his tone, his framing, and his insistence on stupidities and straw men.

Your last sentence is also incredibly fucking mean towards societies you don't have a passing grasp of. But I don't expect much else out of you, nor him.

[Anomalocaris]

Mongol empire was larger, as was and still is Russia, unless you include the wet stuff the Britainnia alledgedly ruled.

It wasn't larger, by land mass or by population.
.

Yes it was. Take out league of nation mendates (which were suppose to be in trust only and be independent soon) and Britain at its very peak in size (when its actual supremacy was already gone with its profligacy in WWI) covered at most 25% of the world's land mass and ~20% of the world's population. At its peak, Mongol empire was 30% of the world's population and 25% of the world's population.

One in four human beings on the planet heiled Caesar. The largest fraction ever to sing god save the queen (ha) was?

I would love to see you show me where you found the information that 1 in 4 people on the planet hieled ceaser. The british empire had a much higher population than the Roman empire. And had more land mass, regardless of this statistic which may be true but I find hard to believe.

.

At its peak, during the reign of Antonine emperors around 150 AD, Roman Empire had about 58 millionpeople. At the time, the whole world had about 190 million people (Atlas of World Population History, Colin McEvedy and Richard Jones, 1978, New York, ISBN 0-7139-1031-3.)

A full 30% of the world's population heiled Caesar, rather more than 1 in 4.

The Egyptians invented sails, without which the British could row to India. The Egyptian invented the ox drawn plough, without which the british would scratch out a living with digging sticks, the Egyptians invented paper, parchement, and ink, without which Magna Carta would have been scratched into clay tablets.

Sails, ploughs, paper, vs jet engine, penicillin and the world wide web.

Precisely, the very fundaments of human civilization upon which such fripperies as jet engine, penicillin and world wide web can be built.

You don't get points in civilization for being around a long time, you get points for the things I previously mentioned, countries taken over, wars won, technology, empire size and so on.

Live fast, think well of yourself, die young, forgotten by posterity.

[paulpablo]

It wasn't larger, by land mass or by population.
.

Yes it was. Take out league of nation mendates (which were suppose to be in trust only and be independent soon) and Britain at its very peak in size (when its actual supremacy was already gone with its profligacy in WWI) covered at most 25% of the world's land mass and ~20% of the world's population. At its peak, Mongol empire was 30% of the world's population and 25% of the world's population.

One in four human beings on the planet heiled Caesar. The largest fraction ever to sing god save the queen (ha) was?

I would love to see you show me where you found the information that 1 in 4 people on the planet hieled ceaser. The british empire had a much higher population than the Roman empire. And had more land mass, regardless of this statistic which may be true but I find hard to believe.

.

At its peak, during the reign of Antonine emperors around 150 AD, Roman Empire had about 58 millionpeople. At the time, the whole world had about 190 million people (Atlas of World Population History, Colin McEvedy and Richard Jones, 1978, New York, ISBN 0-7139-1031-3.)

A full 30% of the world's population heiled Caesar, rather more than 1 in 4.

Sails, ploughs, paper, vs jet engine, penicillin and the world wide web.

Precisely, the very fundaments of human civilization upon which such fripperies as jet engine, penicillin and world wide web can be built.

You don't get points in civilization for being around a long time, you get points for the things I previously mentioned, countries taken over, wars won, technology, empire size and so on.

Live fast, think well of yourself, die young, forgotten by posterity.

Even so Britain still had more people in its empire than both the mongals and the roman empire by far, which is what actually counts. And it doesn't matter what inventions are built from other inventions either in this frame of reference. From what I've researched it was about the same size in land mass as the mongal empire but took over more continents. Wikipedia actually says britains land mass was larger but only by a fraction.

[Rahul]

Technological adances.
England. ...the submarine...

Whaaaaat?

How you figure that?

[Anomalocaris]

Yes it was. Take out league of nation mendates (which were suppose to be in trust only and be independent soon) and Britain at its very peak in size (when its actual supremacy was already gone with its profligacy in WWI) covered at most 25% of the world's land mass and ~20% of the world's population. At its peak, Mongol empire was 30% of the world's population and 25% of the world's population.




At its peak, during the reign of Antonine emperors around 150 AD, Roman Empire had about 58 millionpeople. At the time, the whole world had about 190 million people (Atlas of World Population History, Colin McEvedy and Richard Jones, 1978, New York, ISBN 0-7139-1031-3.)

A full 30% of the world's population heiled Caesar, rather more than 1 in 4.

Precisely, the very fundaments of human civilization upon which such fripperies as jet engine, penicillin and world wide web can be built.



Live fast, think well of yourself, die young, forgotten by posterity.

Even so Britain still had more people in its empire than both the mongals and the roman empire by far, which is what actually counts. From what I've researched it was about the same size in land mass as the mongal empire but took over more continents. Wikipedia actually says britains land mass was larger but only by a fraction.

Well, the China has 3.5 times as many people now as all of British Empire, including India, ever did. China now is more populous than the height of british empire by a factor about the same as british empire was over Mongol empire. In fact, at its height, China also had a far larger proportion of the world's population (35% vs 20%) than Britian.

Mongols and the Romans also conquerored a greater fraction of the people that was there to be conquered than ever did the British.

[Full Circle]

It's kind of ironic that if you go far enough back in time all of us have a common ancestors. All those civilizations are responsible for us being where we are today. All those civilizations were populated by our own relatives.

It's funny how we argue and discuss whose dick is bigger and we're all cut from the same mold.

Human migration patterns:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Map-o...ations.jpg

---

I just recently had my DNA sequence run by National Geographic's Geno Project https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/ and I come to find out that just within the last six generations I have 48% Mediterranean, 32% Northern European, 15% Southwest Asian (Lavant area) and 3% Sub Saharan Africa DNA which correlates closest to the Iberian peninsula. I'm also 0.8% Neanderthal and 1.3% Denisovan

If you were to run your own DNA you'd probably be told something similar to the following:

The common direct maternal ancestor to all women alive today was born in East Africa around 180,000 years ago.

While L3 individuals are found all over Africa, L3 is important for its movements north. Your L3 ancestors were significant because they are the first modern humans to have left Africa, representing the deepest branches of the tree found outside of that continent.

60,000 BCE Your next ancestor is the woman whose descendants formed haplogroup N. Haplogroup N comprises one of two groups that were created by the descendants of L3.

One of these two groups of individuals moved north rather than east and left the African continent across the Sinai Peninsula, in present-day Egypt.

Descendants of these migrants eventually formed haplogroup N. Early members of this group lived in the eastern Mediterranean region and western Asia, where they likely coexisted for a time with other hominids such as Neanderthals.

Today, haplogroup N individuals who headed west are prevalent in Turkey and the eastern Mediterranean, they are found further east in parts of Central Asia and the Indus Valley of Pakistan and India. And members of your haplogroup who headed north out of the Levant across the Caucasus Mountains have remained in southeastern Europe and the Balkans. Importantly, descendants of these people eventually went on to populate the rest of Europe, and today comprise the most frequent mitochondrial lineages found there.

55,000 BCE After several thousand years in the Near East, individuals belonging to a new group called haplogroup R began to move out and explore the surrounding areas. Some moved south, migrating back into northern Africa. Others went west across Anatolia (present-day Turkey) and north across the Caucasus Mountains of Georgia and southern Russia. Still others headed east into the Middle East, and on to Central Asia. All of these individuals had one thing in common: they shared a female ancestor from the N clan, a recent descendant of the migration out of Africa.

41,000 BCE RO Some individuals moved across West Asia into Central Asia and then the Indus Valley. Others moved south, heading back into the African homeland from where their ancestors had recently departed.

Later, members of this lineage moved north across the Caucasus Mountains and west across Anatolia into Europe. These were Cro-Magnon. Their arrival in Europe heralded the end of the era of the Neanderthals.

Today, members of this lineage are present around the Red Sea and widely throughout the region. While this genetic lineage is common in Ethiopia and Somalia, individuals from this group are present at highest frequency in Arabia. Those living in East Africa are the likely result of more recent migrations back into the continent.

30,000 BCE Descending from haplogroup R were a group of individuals who formed a western Eurasian lineage. The descendants of pre-HV live in high frequencies in the Anatolian-Caucasus region and Iran. While members of this group can also be found in the Indus Valley near the Pakistan-India border, their presence is considered the result of a subsequent migration eastward of individuals out of the Near East.

This wave of migration into western Europe marked the appearance and spread of what archaeologists call the Aurignacian culture, a culture distinguished by significant innovations in methods of manufacturing tools, standardization of tools, and use of a broader set of tool types, such as end-scrapers for preparing animal skins and tools for woodworking.

Around 15,000 to 20,000 years ago, colder temperatures and a drier global climate locked much of the world’s fresh water at the polar ice caps, making living conditions near impossible for much of the northern hemisphere. Early Europeans retreated to the warmer climates of the Iberian Peninsula, Italy, and the Balkans, where they waited out the cold spell. Their population sizes were drastically reduced, and much of the genetic diversity that had previously existed in Europe was lost.

18,000 BCE to current H1 From West Asia, this line spread north into Europe and west into West Africa. Some who traveled to Europe expanded out of refugia after the last glacial maximum.

Today, this line makes up about 10 percent of maternal lineages in Denmark and around 8 percent of maternal lineages in Norway and Sweden. It accounts for around 9 percent of maternal lineages throughout the British Isles and is 12 percent of maternal lineages in Northern Ireland. It is around 8 percent of the population in Portugal. It is between 4 and 5 percent of maternal lineages in Croatia. It is about 5 percent of the Armenian population and about 6 percent of the Lebanese population.

---

[paulpablo]

Even so Britain still had more people in its empire than both the mongals and the roman empire by far, which is what actually counts. From what I've researched it was about the same size in land mass as the mongal empire but took over more continents. Wikipedia actually says britains land mass was larger but only by a fraction.

Well, the China has 3.5 times as many people now as all of British Empire, including India, ever did. China now is more populous than the height of british empire by a factor about the same as british empire was over Mongol empire. In fact, at its height, China also had a far larger proportion of the world's population (35% vs 20%) than Britian.

Mongols and the Romans also conquerored a greater fraction of the people that was there to be conquered than ever did the British.

But you're combining 3 different civilizations with one, using the empire land mass of the mongols, The amount of people under Roman rule, and Chinas population.

All that matters is that more people were ruled over by the British empire, more technology was produced during the British empire, and this argument is fairly stupid anyway because it's a theoretical argument I came up with based on "What if life was like the computer game civilization" So I don't know why you seem to be so passionate about it. But since you are taking it so seriously Britain would easily win since all the civilizations you're using are ancient ones, except china who would lose out anyway based on pollution, overcrowding and the fact they had Hong Kong taken away from them.

---

It's kind of ironic that if you go far enough back in time all of us have a common ancestors. All those civilizations are responsible for us being where we are today. All those civilizations were populated by our own relatives.

It's funny how we argue and discuss whose dick is bigger and we're all cut from the same mold.

If you're talking about my comparing of civilizations that's just something I did for fun my ego isn't involved in this at all, I know my ancestors are from Poland and Russia and I am English and was born here but I don't feel pride in what the British empire did because it isn't my achievement I just happen to have been born here.

But I do find it fucking amazing if you look at the size of Britain, then think about how many people speak English, how many places have been colonized by Britain, how many things were invented by British inventors. But when I bring this topic up people interject with things like "HEY BUT EGYPT INVENTED PLOUGHS!!!!!!!!!" So what?