*Falls on ground laughing*

Well Chinawhite you are on wrong tracks there. Australia is same thing, its current cultural and sosial structure orgins from western europe.

umm…..What can i say, I find this funny yet very offensive. But i will not persude this because it seems you dont know the lifestyle australians live or the type of conitions they live in. Dont tell me how you think australians live because your very mistaken .Dont assume that when the europeans came they brought a lifestyle with them. Australia developed differently from europe america developed differently from europe. I think you are assuming that when people arrived here they automatically set their homes how they like it. Quite differently. Maybe in the first 5 years of settlement there might have been a british lifestyle but then the similarities end there.

America only started dominating the world post-1945 when the old european power houses were depleted. This was 1950s america not 18th century america. By that time immigration mix cultures were highly mixed together(segregated south) this new logic of yours blows me away. If you go by what you are trying to say than we all are african powers since we trace the first humans to africa. Im sorry but that is a example of what your trying to say. So south east asia is dominated by ethnic chinese it is part of china. Japan had its roots on the chinese mainland it is also a part of china. When Turman set up to establish american bases in other countries i dont only european origins where there to consult him. What about the Jews?. They dominated american polictics and science but were mainly from germany and other european countries but were originally from the middle east. Who are they?. They contributed a lot of help to america. Would you considered them european?

So US is european in orgins and therefore considered as European power. We arent talking about individual states but general western cultural heritage

What side. West coast or East coast?. America was not built by europeans only. A quick look at the history of cities on the West coast or immigration history of japanese chinese and korean people you will find what history they contributed. Europeans immigratns were the majority of people which came but as a percentage wise the other minority groups also contributed as large a percentage. Im not sure what you want it to mean but you are twisting facts to suit a argument European immigrants were the foundation but it was not their effort alone which brought them up. Wait, Can you take this argument into Defencetalk.com go Goof and other australian residents can ridicule this thinking?. New age thinking. And not to generalize here, What is general western culture?. There must be something that connects the spannish to the russians or the british to the serbains or the polish to the french. What general cultural similarities do they share?. South africa also a european power?

PRCs power was based on western ideology brougth there by western (Russian) power

Ummm… It was the french and not the russianss. But we are talking about socialism and quasi-capitalism arent we?. While if that is the case china already had experience with that type of goervment before this introduction by the west. And if you are talking about Communism china did not european communism like Marxist or Leninism but embraced chinese socialism with chinese thought. Maoism is quite differnt from Marxist or Leninism style middle class but took on chinese enviroment into consideration. China was never a communist country but a Socialist country. Communism is a goal which proved incapable of reaching. It works in theory

“Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun”?

How can you claim a ideology?

If you think that you migth find intresting bridges towards some sort of solution in my guestion in general

While you can tell me than. Because i have come to my conclusion after little thought. Like i said. im no doctor. The europeans were living in filth and war that they developed a better immune system to deal with diseases. While the south americans were not exposed to the diseases which charatized most parts of the world so lack of immune system was a major cause.

And also its quite hilarious to quote that West (europe and its sibling, european USA) isent the dominator of the world

European america?…Well well well. Tell that to any american and see if he does not get offended by your comments. And the west does not lead asia in anything. Lets see. from a almost equal starting point, the japanese(asian) has bet the germans(west). In most field of engineering and GDP and let me remind you japan was under a disadvantage because it had the smaller economic base. Money wise the West is higher par capita than asian people, but as a whole asia is richer than europe. Technologly to the japanese koreans and chinese are on par or surpass all the other countries in the world.

The US is a multi-cultural society just like australia and like a lot of countries around the world, They are not european( 😮 ). They are american. What does it mean to be the west. The world is not flat but cirular, i point one way it can be called east i point another and it can be called west

But it never rosed into global dominator as the British Empire did and followed by US and USSR both orginally European powers whit outside geopolitical reach.

US a european power?? :confused: . Does europe encompass both sides of the alantic ocean?. The USSR like china was almost soley a land power it had limited global reach and had limited influence. Even china durings the 60s had bases and allies. Albania in europe Zambia, zimbabwe, Pakistan. The did send her navy and wide joruneys and to harrass american carriers but was not a global power because they did not dominate any area which was not connected by land.

How useful was the british empire when it had a war with germany/japan WW1 or WW2?. How again did the british have global power. They had presence in most parts of the world but where not the main power in the regional. Global reach vs global power is different. The land the british got were Terra nullius . Barren land or people without government. THis is how they claimed their land. What they did was find land with people which had not developed a legal system had not even gone though the feudal system or were still in the middle ages and claimed the land as theirs. Most of the time the natives didn’t even know it actually happened. Living in a former british colony i can tell you when the british came there was nothing here to offer resistance. The aboriginals did not fight for the land but moved aside when they came. Even the wars between different aboriginal tribes was one of a death match between the two leaders.

The western exploers did not conquer a civillation but conquered indivual tribes. They payed each other tribe againest each other for land weapons and clothes. examples are native americans african tribes which had grudes but the british french portuguess just flamed rival tensions. During the coloization what is the actual rat of violance againest the invaders?. They only became apparent to me a little pre-WW1 and a lot more apparent Post-WW2. Actually i only remember reading about a few clashes with british forces in the 18th and early to late 19th century. Taking land from regional tribes is easy but fighting a war againest a established country is hard. In the case of other european powers

chinese less willingless to concuere world, but Im not buying that so easy. What are philoshpyes?

Heres a good article i read about a month ago when celebrating Zheng he’s voyages.I could have wrote my own version but this one just sums it up a lot better. So What i interpurt the article as saying is the europeans were compled to look elsewhere because of the lack of money wheres china did not need to look for other sources because it didn’t need money. Benifits of trade with one self outweigh trade with another nation. The ego thing comes to play when china self forced stagernation. A better example of this is the japanese before the menji restoration. China closed all he ports to foriegn trade and denied cross seas excahned because she believe everything was developed and nothing could match chinese power because of all the years of chinese domination

“The motives of the Western sea explorers and the Eastern treasure fleets were very different. The Chinese were essentially on a dignified tour of the civilized world, initially perhaps in a search for the deposed emperor, but ultimately for the rich gifts of tribute and for the prestige. The Europeans, on the other hand, were engaged in their bitter war with Islam and working for profit. De Zurara, chronicler of Prince Henry the Navigator, lists these motives for Prince Henry in priority order: (1) Cosmographical knowledge, (2) Profit of traffic, (3) Commerce, (4) War versus Islam, (5) Missionary zeal, and (6) the Prince’s famous horoscope.42 There were great economic considerations for the Europeans. In China, the economic considerations were reserved for the inland activities; overseas activities were wanton expenses without sufficient return demonstrated to warrant continuation. The Europeans were in competition with Islam and with each other; the Chinese acknowledged no competitors. In summary, the precipitous fall of Chinese seapower in the 15th century is not surprising. It was fragile even in its time of greatest glory during the treasure ship expeditions of the early Ming dynasty. As Ming China settled down into the more typical Chinese isolationist philosophy, increased efficiency of inland transport (notably an all weather capable Grand Canal) enabled a turning away from the sea and the coast line, and a reliance on a semi-static coastal militia vice a mobile sea-striking arm. This was to prove painfully inadequate against the 16th century large scale piratical activities of the Wo-k’ou (Chinese and Japanese sea mauraders who occupied large sections of coastal China for years).43 A balanced approach, in the twenty-twenty vision of hindsight, of a smaller but still capable Chinese navy with large seagoing warships, focused to developing and protecting Chinese overseas trade that generated prosperity for the country and generated more than enough tax revenue to pay for itself, would have been more effective and perhaps would have survived. The reasons for the dramatic fall of the 15th century Ming navy were political centralization argument in the country that consistently dominated the region, the struggle in the Imperial court between the Confucian courtiers and the palace eunuchs, the internal policy struggle of ideologies between foreign trade and isolationism. Isolationism won. Also, the navy had become dependent in the 15th century on just a few missions; large scale diplomacy to exact tribute, defense of the coast from sea pirates, and protection of coastal grain transport. The solidification of the new regime, and the completion of the Grand Canal summit water supply, removed two of the three missions by the mid 15th century. Finally, maritime threats were considered secondary in China to continental threats, and thus when Mongol border wars and limited resources pressed the Ming dynasty, the navy lost resources to the army. It was not a lack of nautical technology, but rather a combination of the above political and strategic factors that caused a Chinese rejection of sea trade and seapower in the mid-15th century. Ocean-going technology was subsequently lost in China due to official hostility and neglect.”
The rise and fall of 15th century chinese sea power

But the guestion migth be repraised as Why didnt South American disieases wipe out Europeans? Why european disiases were better than South Americans.

Im no doctor but it probaly has to do with conditions. The europeans had a dirty enviroment where people where dying and was not burried and were cramped together in close enviroments while the South americans lived better and did not have as much conflict. We could say anything that was thrown at the europeans by the south americans would have been a cold compared to small pox. The europeans probaly had a speical immunity to disease. I dot know im just specualting

Two words…

What domination?

crobato you bet me by 10 minutes 🙁

Lets start this off with a quote from Napoleon

[b]“LET CHINA SLEEP, FOR WHEN THE DRAGON AWAKES, THE WORLD WILL TREMBLE”[/b]
…Napoleon Bonaparte

Hamburger summed it up best.

Western europe comprises alot of countries, the major countries like britian spain france and the Netherlands were the countries which colonized other countries but did Finland, Austria or Germany have any effect on the western dominace of the world?. What are you considering western europe? and eastern europe?

Europe lead to all the breakthroughs in the middle ages and renaissance because they were forced to. As you know western europe has many different countries and was constantly at war with each other. People only knowing war were forced into thinking of new ways how a victory could be won with a smaller manpower pool had to arm hi with amour so they would suffer less casualties and had to arm their soldiers with more powerful weapons. Armour and firepower.

But in the case of china, They were the dominant power. China had the largest ego out of any country ever, China had already defeated many regional powers and had very early on established a massive empire every country in asia paid tribute to the chinese empire and if you didn’t pay tribute you were a vassel state. China didn’t need to have firearms because her armies(manchu Banner system) were overwhelmingly superior to any regional power. Now that being said china forced stagnated herself on many occasions. The Ming closed off all exports and stopped the voyages to other countries. The Chinese fleet in the 15th century was much much more advanced than the boat columbus used to discover america. Some theories even say that china discovered america before columbus

In the chinese mind, We were the centre of the earth while the outside borders where the barbarians. China did not want their land because china already has a enormous empire and didn’t need want nor throught about going to live in barbarian lands. If china wanted to south east asia could have become part of china. The chinese in the 15th and early 16th century were ahead of the west in artillery be it on land and on sea. Its only after the peace of china that development of new weaponary stopped. China had a army of some 6million conscripts in 1800 with no enemy to fight, China became fat and lazy. Also the conditions china was faced with had been detrioted by a large amount. in 200 or so years china population tripled and quadtripled.

Now because of this lack of development and the ego china didn’t developed and fell behind other countries. It took losing to the british the japanese and a lot of other countries to snap her out of her dream land. China did a lot of soul searching during the early 20th century and we are rising fast very fast. for almost the whole of civillation china had been the pinicle of development only the last few centuries has she fallen behind. Not to mention which country in europe can be compared to china in size the amount of people and a few more years wealth as a whole. We manage to stay as a peopel and still have the majority of the land we always had. The Hare will always win the race

What is the Current lead of europe compared to asia?.

QUOTE Gollevainen
“Why didnt the South American Empires rise to domination, Why did handfull of europeans wipe down whole native population to obvilion? “

Because the europeans brought disease not with superior weaponary

The South americans might have seemed like a warlike people but in reailty things like war were done differently. It was not a pitch battles in the forest where firearms or crossbows would have been sueful but hand to hand combat where the fastest and quickest person would win. Armour would have slowed them down durig battle to advance or to retreat. So one wooden shield and one sword were a nice collection. Not to mention the populations of these people did not come into contact with each other often because they were seperated by forest mountians and the many rivers. Europe is a plain piece of paper compared to south america. The europeans needed places where they could sell goods and the early explorers were looking for Silk and later spieces in which to bring back to make money. The europeans introduced cottom and wool to other people which they did not like so they had nothing to trade.

It was really all about money. The south americans didn’t need money, The asians didn’t need money. But the europeans did because they were under such competetion to be better than each other

5. A Man(not sure) trying to have a debate with a kid on the internet

Its only teenage wasteland….

Why you here then?

6. funnier lies

you arent the focus of my universe

It seems i am your digital universe.

You “Im going to Confront you”
Me “LOL”

7. People trying their best to lie 😮

^^ ^^

8. Little boys on the internet :diablo:

1. People which are “military” men which thinks they know about every field of the military even though they are in reserve and in artillery

Things you find funny

10. Animals (COWs)