No worries, I don't take the conversation personally at all, freedom of speech and expression is a beautiful thing.
Firstly, scientists, especially the ones I noted, do not have a liberal bias. Scientists can not have a political bias when it comes to their research. Because scientific hypotheses are tested by empiricism, other scientists can, and usually do, independently test important hypotheses. Since so much of modern science is technology bound, it is difficult for the general public to evaluate much of what is published. Much of science requires long, difficult study for an understanding of the field so the professional “science journalist” is often the source of information for the general public. Being "politically correct" is when you put what makes you feel all cozy inside over the actual facts. This is important when talking about science because conservatives and other political groups have a history of denying science when it doesn't fit in with their narrative, climate change is one example. Even though at least 98% of scietists agree that climate change is happening and that it is heavily influenced if not caused by human activity, many science denialists claim that there is still a debate on the issue or that scientists are split on the issue when this is not the case. Another example is the tobacco industry and the oil industry. It is well documented that decades ago corporations tried to crack down on science when it confirmed that smoking was bad for humans. The same people who argued about that decades ago are the same MINORITY of scientists probably less than 2% who argue man made climate change is not confirmed (these are the same "scientists" who are paid to do research by companies like Exxon Mobil... hmmmm
I said all that to say this, the way of demonizing and claiming scientists have a liberal bias is not new, it is decades old, and I urge against it.
Secondly, this goes into "common sense" vs scientific research. Centuries and centuries ago it was common sense that the sun revolved around the earth, decades ago it was common sense that smoking was OK to do and had no health risks. Science begged to differ, and many scientists were persecuted by the Church when they made this claim, many scientists were persecuted by big tobacco corporations. We all know what is true today. This is important for this discussion because in regards to race there is common sense and then their is science. Common sense says Race is an essential (i.e.,inherent) quality of a person; it’s natural and universal; it’s a genetic trait. Science says "race is a social and historical construction". Common sense would categorize race as "Physical Characteristics , Sharply Bounded,Inherited Characteristics, Behavior, Hierarchical Categories" and might claim ethnicity is " Shared Culture. Language, Religion, Passed Down Socially, Not Hierarchical". But categorizations get messy really quickly and does not work. African Americans are not always black, many are lighter or the same complexion as "white" people. Plust the definition of "white" itself varies from society to society. Germans, under Hitler, thought that Russians were inferior to them and I believe Hitler targeted more Russians than Jews. In America, Italians and the Irish once weren't considered white. They were seen as inferior, to the native whites. In America, decades ago, you could look completely white, have blonde hair and blue eyes, but if you had just one black person period in your family tree even from generations ago you were considered black.
Thirdly, you can't talk about Western Civilization without talking about the voyages of Zheng He. Zheng He had huge voyages and China was a superpower in the world while Europe was suffering from civil wars among each other, still in the Middle ages. Is this because the Whites are just violent by nature and it is inherent in their race? No, there are other factors at work. China was dominant and the rise of Western Civilization was only possible after China withdrew within itself so. You said
"Thanks to white male we have today relatively stable western civilization (meaning easy access to education, social programs, reasonable safety and low crime, modern science and technology,...). Like it or not, you just don't see it in countries where white male is not in power"
well Asia would beg to differ.
It's just fascinating. In 1914, really only China, Japan, and the Ottoman Empire had escaped becoming European colonies. A thousand years ago, no one would have ever expected that result, for at that point western Europe was hopelessly backward. It was politically weak, it was poor, and the major long-distance commerce was a slave trade led by Vikings. The political dominance of western Europe was an unexpected outcome. Yes there are alot of conventional explanations to how Western Europe has come to dominate the globe (even though China is once again on the rise to becoming a superpower and surpassing America as the hegemon in the world today but that is another conversation
industrialization is one, for example,but on closer inspection they all fall apart. Before 1800, Europe had already taken over at least 35 percent of the world, but Britain was just beginning to industrialize. The rest of Europe at that time was really no wealthier than China, the Middle East, or South Asia. So as an explanation, industrialization doesn't work. Another explanation, described in Jared Diamond's famous book [Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies], is disease. But something like the smallpox epidemic that ravaged Mexico when the Spanish conquistador Hernán Cortés overthrew the Aztec Empire just isn't the whole story of Cortés's victory or of Europe's successful colonization of other parts of the world. Disease can't explain, for example, the colonization of India, because people in southeast Asia had the same immunity to disease that the Europeans did. So that's not the answer—it's something else. Gunpowder technology might be one of the best explanations for the rise of Western Europe but this is not a race issue.
You see, it was invented in China and used in Japan and Southeast Asia. Europeans did not create gunpowder or guns but they did get very good at using it, because the purpose of use was different between the Ottoman Empire and 14th century Europeans. Once again not race, not because whites or Europeans or whatever were inherently more violent or more intelligent, it's just because the Ottoman empire and the Europeans simply had different uses of this technology. Gunpowder was really important for conquering territory; it allows a small number of people to exercise a lot of influence. The technology grew to include more than just guns: armed ships, fortifications that can resist artillery, and more, and the Europeans became the best at using these things. There is a good model to explain why Europeans got so good at using this by professor, Philip Hoffman. His idea incorporates the model of a contest or a tournament where your odds of winning are higher if you spend more resources on fighting. You can think of that as being much like a baseball team that hires better players to win more games, but in this case, instead of coaches, it's political leaders and instead of games there are wars. And the more that the political leaders spend, the better their chances of defeating other leaders and, in the long run, of dominating the other cultures. Obviously, Europeans spent more of their resources on violence, this, once again, doesn't mean whites are inherently more violent than other races. Currently, in the West, blacks are often (incorrectly) seen as inherently violent.
What is more important is not race but its this: If you think about it, you realize that advancements in gunpowder technology—which are important for conquest—arise where political leaders fight using that technology, where they spend huge sums on it, and where they're able to share the resulting advances in that technology. For example, if I am fighting you and you figure out a better way to build an armed ship, I can imitate you. For that to happen, the countries have to be small and close to one another. And all of this describes Europe. When we talk about China, it truly dominated from I believe 1100 to 1800. China ’s global predominance was based on ‘reciprocal benefits’ with its trading partners, while Britain relied on mercenary armies of occupation, savage repression and a ‘divide and conquer’ policy to foment local rivalries. In the face of native resistance, the British (as well as other Western imperial powers) did not hesitate to exterminate entire communities. China had based its economic predominance on ‘non-interference in the internal affairs of its trading partners’. In contrast, British imperialists intervened violently in Asia , reorganizing local economies to suit the needs of the empire (eliminating economic competitors including more efficient Indian cotton manufacturers) and seized control of local political, economic and administrative apparatus to establish the colonial state.
You also said
"Christianity, because it appears that it was many times the underlying force underneath... so when some claim that religion is not important and that it is outdated, he may not be entirely accurate either, because religion and especially Christianity was the base of today's (western) society"
. This is not really the case. Actually the ENLIGTHENMENT is the cause for Western Civilization as we know it today. The age of enlightnement and reason brought us philosophy, culture, arts, modern farming and agriculture techniques, the scientific method, medicine, education and increased schooling, democracy was expanded tremendously under the enlightenment, technology, etc. While religion has brought us most wars, the crusades, the inquisition, the suppression of women. There is some good in religion and some people do good in the name for it, but secularism and the enlightenment is why Western Civilization is so dope.
You say e.g.
One race being inferior to another is not proven in science". That is not entirely true, it is skewed because some groups of people are still feeling inferior to other groups of people.
Once again the feelings of people is not fact. Feelings of inferiority does not equate to scientific/genetic inferiority. See what you are talking about is actually my point, race is socially constructed in that the hegemonic class, the rulers of a society dictate what race is and this has no basis on what is actual/scientific/genetic. In America decades ago, you can look white, blonde and all, but if, in the South, your great great grandmother was black, guess what you're black now and now you have no rights. Racial categories in America are not the same as racial categories in Brazil and they are both different from racial categories in South Africa. The discussion of things such as poverty, violence, and crime are interesting and these fall under the blanket of political science, sociological and even economic fields of study and in fact there ARE CREDIBLE answers to explain this. But just saying someone is genetically inferior because they are poor, undereducated, etc. is the oldest trick in the book. You give all members of society equal/quality education, healthcare,a living wage, etc (not an equality of outcome... that's communism) then you see how a society, even those people labeled "inferior", will flourish.
Edit: That's an interesting theory when applied to seduction but I'd have to see research behind that. I, unless persuades otherwise, don't believe, tall, white men would be the most attractive person in the world, just because of history. I believe attraction depends on individuals and the fundamentals of that individual. Brad Pitt may be incredibly alluring to certain women and absolutuely unattractive to others, same with say Idris Elba or Jason Mamoa. One thing I noticed, however, is insanely attractive to women is juxtaposition. For example, Chase used the example of his Asian friend who was really buff but also really smart. This juxtaposition can be attractive in shattering stereotypes and, thus, making yourself seem more unique/mysterious/ interesing. Woman mighy ask "Why is this Asian guy who is stereotypically a socially, awkward nerd so damn cool and attractive". I used this myself when I was single to great success, "This black guy who is buff also seems to be well read and able to talk on many subjects in an intellectual manner with others". That also kind of ties in to Chase's article on 9 male identities, shattering stereoypes is attractive and makes you an interesting person. We all noticed a cool character in a movie or tv show who just seems all the more cooler when he does something effortlessly that doesn't seem like an obvious skill he'd otherwise have, like James Bond being an excellent skier. The Asian guy would be a mixture of the intellectual and the athlete, a brains and brawn juxtaposition and wildly attractive. Other examples in popular culture make for sexy and interesting characters: e.g. Iron Man/Tony Stark, the badass intellectual, Edward Cullen, the dangerous vampire (byronic) who is also sensitive, etc. (juxtapositions are all in popular culture most superheroes are juxtapositions/ alter egos).
