If Europeans, and whites in general, are supposed to be more

>>2963748
Because Europe is a small region with arbitrarily defined borders full of different ethnicities with their own unique cultures

>>2963760
Most speak the European branch of the indo-European languages so they have that going for them.

>>2963760
How the fuck does that explain all the times they fought outside of Europe?

>>2963760
>Because Europe is a small region with arbitrarily defined borders full of different ethnicities with their own unique cultures
This legitimately explains how and why Europe was able to colonize faster than any other region. Not because they are white master race.

Take any other continent. Africa, Asia, the Americas, were all very spread out and sparsely populated in many areas. Some people never came in contact with each other despite living in the same continent. There was no reason to fight or conquer or engage in an arms race because everyone had the resources they needed to survive. At least this is true for most people throughout human history.

Another example of what I'm saying is Japan. Its a small place with arbitrarily defined borders. The result? Kingdoms constantly warring. Japan eventually emerged from this warring culture as a nation hungry for conquest. Just like europe.

>>2963857
WE

>>2963748

Europeans were the niggers of the world for most of history.

You know what they did?

They fucking organized and adapted.

>>2963887
How's that WE?

>>2963748
Being civilized and being pacifist are not synonyms and I have no idea how you even arrived at such conclusion. All the great CIVILIZATIONS in history were warlike as fuck.

>>2963748
War is half of all people's history.
Actually, probably more than half.

File: liberal history.jpg (45KB, 334x960px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 334x960px

>>2963857
>Take any other continent. Africa, Asia, the Americas, were all very spread out and sparsely populated in many areas. Some people never came in contact with each other despite living in the same continent. There was no reason to fight or conquer or engage in an arms race because everyone had the resources they needed to survive. At least this is true for most people throughout human history.
You can't possibly belive this dribble. Asia's history is far bloodier than Europe's, and the Americas and Africa never stopped fighting.
I think pic related is more your speed.

>>2963857
Do you actually think the history Asia is less warlike than Europe? The fucking Mongols ring a bell? Tamerlane? Persian empire? All the random conflicts in China with a hundred bajillion casualties each?

>>2963857
>Take any other continent
You should rather take a subcontinent or region given the size of Europe. The core regions of MENA were definitely not sparsely populated or spread out, neither was India for example.
Europe is probably less isolated from the rest of Eurasia than India was, see that big fucking blob called the Russian empire in North and Central Eurasia. And of course large swathes of Europe were frontier territories in the medieval and early modern period, in Northern, Central and Eastern Europe.

>Another example of what I'm saying is Japan. Its a small place with arbitrarily defined borders.
A small place indeed, Japan is maybe 5% the size of Europe, so I don't know why you aren't comparing it to the British Isles or something.
No idea what you mean by "arbitrarily defined borders" since its borders have been defined as roughly the entire archipelago, minus whatever the aborigines were controlling before they subjugated them.

>Japan eventually emerged from this warring culture as a nation hungry for conquest.
Nnnot really. Some of the conquerors who unified Japan were hellbent on invading mainland Asia but that's mainly because they didn't know how to do anything but war. As soon as those ones were removed from the pictures Japan fell back into isolationism until the 19th century, as it had done before the Sengoku era.