To: Neocon who wrote (5370 ) 1/14/2000 1:47:00 AM From: Merritt Read Replies (1) | Respond to
Neocon: <<Would you care to speculate on how many who tend to frame things in those terms know anything about the Greeks, Romans, scholastics, Chaucer, Dante, Shakespeare, Titian, El Greco, Vermeer, Palestrina, Bach, Mozart, and so forth? >>And why emphasize its "whiteness", unless you mean to claim that whiteness is more than an incidental attribute? >>There is no reason to believe that our ascendancy was racial, rather than the result of complex historical factors, including a heavy dollop of fortune....... >>Think and Grow Rich , Napoleon Hill wrote, as I recall, "What the mind of man can conceive and believe, it can achieve." IMHO, it's that type of Western (mostly white) thought, coupled with the primacy principals as espoused by many Christians, that led to Western ascension, to use your term. IOWs, it's a cultural thing that is predominantly the result of caucasian thought, but not a strictly racial thing, IMHO. If "ascendency" were strictly on a racial basis, then the Asians would rule supreme based on IQ findings, which are also backed up by there being a slightly larger brain pan on average amongst the Asian race. Or so I read some years ago.
