How come the bulk of quality literature and philosophy was made by white males?

Because Western Culture has long been the highest bough on the branched tree of societal and cultural advancement, owing to a combination of geographical and coincidental deterministic factors. This, combined with the disadvantages to other cultures and societies stemming from the same factors, has lead in equal parts to exemplary progress in the West alongside relative exclusion from those rarer aesthetically significant works that have been produced by other societies/cultures.

As for the male/female split, this can be accounted for largely by the societal limitations on women throughout Western history (itself a factor that aided in the rapid development of many cultures by eliminating demand for parity among a larger population subset), as well as by the Skewed Bell Curve Phenomenon.

I don't mind /pol/ posting here, but why are your threads always so dumb and unimaginative?

>Nah, being oppressed is good motivation to write and philosophize...

Wew those 14 hours of slave labor was rough, guess I'll blow off some steam by writing a treatise on logic

It was just an empire built on the unification of the Islamic world. They faced more oppression from Europe than they ever gave out.

>geography and coincidences

Lol he fell for the geography and "coincidences" meme.

Your question should really answer itself

Oppressing Slavs and Greeks with Muslim Slavs and Greeks is pretty moot as far as empires go. Excellent administration and politicking, I guess.

This, all literary minds who claim to speak for the oppressed are just educated demagogues using sophistry to convince the layman.
This is as equally true of, say, Jefferson as it is of Marx.

>whites enslaved every human of every race for all history thus preventing everyone else from writing or achieving anything of merit

This is what lib profs are teaching kids these days

Whites are the most creative smart race. There are only two smart racial categories, East Asians and Europeans, and East Asians are the smarter of the two, but Europeans place more emphasis on individuality and original thought which allows them a superior aesthetic ability. Blacks, Latinos and most Arabs are of course too dumb to appreciate language and beauty

Thats a great beginners attempt at interpretating what that post implied, you'll go far in lit

If you're so smart, why don't you improve your life in any conceivable way?

To be clear (since I'm sure you're trying to bait some racial theory), I find little evidence to suggest that purely biological factors could explain the severe differences between different social and cultural groups - not least because society and culture exist independent of race or biological ancestry.

That's probably because you deliberately avoid evidence that will contradict your misinformed worldview

>society and culture exist independent of race or biological ancestry.
Kind of like how souls exist independently of bodies, or minds exist independently of brains? You must be pretty religious to believe that.

>For thousands of years

What

Or it's because IQ is an inherently flawed, nebulous means of measuring intellectual capacity (as it has long been criticized), and even if we accept it as a valid measurement it doesn't explain how some people end up in mudhuts while others end up with jet planes after thousands of years of development. The differences between the highest scorers and lowest scorers are not so great as to completely delineate people so strongly.

Over the course of a generation or even a few hundred years, sure, but there are so many greater factors at an extended time period and expanded population size

It wasn't.

t. the east

>not least because society and culture exist independent of race or biological ancestry.

Not /pol/ but this is empirically retarded

Biology/genes are 70% responsible for your IQ. I'm betting biology is similarly important when it comes to intellectual achievements in general.
And geography has to be tamed and adapted on purpose
Whites had to tame horses and domesticate dogs and clear cut forests and adapt to harsh winters...figure out efficient agriculture techniques...that in itself requires some sort of inherent intelligence...not to mention the bravery and ingenuity of traveling to new lands by foot or by boat.

To this day Africans are terrible farmers go research what happens with white farmers in south Africa

Macendonia, Rome, Byzantium, HRE.

what is the African slave trade?
what is the Barbary slave trade?

Ottomans were pretty based

>Italians and Greeks
>white

>Waging war is oppression

The persians attacked first btw.

Muslim invasion predates the crusades.

Won't bother with the rest

Nothing compared to the Atlantic slave trade.

/pol/ is as competent in history as it is in literature. What a shock!

Actually, it was several times larger at its peak than the Atlantic trade was at its, and it both started earlier and ended later.

> it was several times larger at its peak than the Atlantic trade was at its

Not being rude, do you have a source for this?

Whites didn't do most of that, you moron. We literally got 99% of our advancement from other cultures who had notable advantages, transferred them to us through cross contact, and then died off.
We are the most stable social/cultural group, certainly, but this isn't accounted for by IQ.
If we take the IQ argument, how the fuck do you explain the rise and fall of all those earlier, great civilizations and cultures? It's almost like war, famine, disease, etc. Plays a greater role in determining advancement than any number of individuals with high IQs.

Are you so historically illiterate that do you not know that the crusades came after the muslim invasion of Iberia, or that the Greco-Persian Wars came about after persian aggression in Ionia?

Not /pol/ btw, you fucking retard

Wikipedia

>We literally got 99% of our advancement from other cultures

Name one.

Imagine if this board had real moderation

Literally google it and find any source
1 million to 1.25 million white Christian Europeans were enslaved in North Africa, from the beginning of the 16th century to the middle of the 18th, by slave traders from Tunis, Algiers, and Tripoli alone (these numbers do not include the European people which were enslaved by Morocco and by other raiders and traders of the Mediterranean Sea coast) (Davis, Robert C. (2003). Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters: White Slavery in the Mediterranean, the Barbary Coast and Italy, 1500-1800. Palgrave Macmillan)

Sixteenth- and 17th-century customs statistics suggest that Istanbul's additional slave import from the Black Sea may have totaled around 2.5 million from 1450 to 1700.(The Cambridge World History of Slavery: Volume 3, AD 1420–AD 1804)

Not even getting into the Atlantic slave trade where whites were enablers more than anything else. Ottomans were based desu.

I assume my post would still remain, since it doesn't break any rules. Do your own research my man, we both made claims about the arab slave trade without much of a leg to stand on.

We got archery and horsetaming from the mongols
We got our dominant religions, which played a huge role in the development of our ethics and scientific systems, from the Romans and Jews

>we got horsetaming from the mongols

Proto-indo-european had vocabulary related to the domestication of horses. Whites hadn't even split from Indians at that point, our race was literally born with horsemanship.

The bow is one of the world's oldest weapon and was found in literally every culture on the planet. Are you stupid? Do you actually think the Greeks did not have bows? We even found crossbows in ancient greece around the same period it was invented in China.

>Horsetaming

>Doesn't know about the Thebean calvary

wew lad.

Roman culture is Western culture dumbass.

Christianity certainly originate from the middle-east, but we made it our own.

>falling for bait this obvious

So this is the power of /pol/...

>Literature
Because literature is largely a white thing and has never been taken seriously outside of religion. Very very few countries have a rich literary tradition and books aren't half as influential as we pretend they are. You couldn't name a nonreligious book that has the cultural influence or artistic merit of music or visual art. It's such a /pol/meme to force the idea that the merit of a culture is measured by their books. Nobody gives a shit about books. Before television, theatre was held above literature. Why don't you ask about plays? Probably because almost every culture and nation has prominent theatrical traditions and that doesn't bode well for your ideology. Why not poetry? Why not oral tradition? Because it doesn't accommodate your ideology. fact is that spending weeks alone writing hundreds of pages is kind of an autistic thing to do and most cultures don't produce people willing to do that in leiu of music/poetry/plays/oral storytelling that existed before literature.
>Philosophy
That's not true, we just live in a western culture where we study western thinkers. We didn't invent thinking.

>Whites hadn't even split from Indians at that point
>He still believes in literal Aryanism

Proto-indo-european is the well-established common language of the ancestors of most european peoples, several middle eastern peoples including the Iranians, and the peoples of the northern Indian subcontinent. Ask any linguist.

All of those literally only oppressed other whites and jews.

The reality is that most of Western philosophy comes either from Ancient Greece, or of which there multitudes of texts from other cultures which reach similar conclusions, or they are from Christian theology, which is comparative to the philosophies of Islam or Buddhism, or they come after the Renaissance, which is when the Europeans really started to dominate the world, technologically, politically and economically.

As far as the gender thing goes, women have generally been dissuaded from writing for most of history. Even my own mother was told as a child in the 60s that reading was a waste of time because she was just going to get married anyway,

I would reckon there are actually more notable female than male authors under 60 right now.

Women do tend to be less inclined to philosophy though. But women also tend to be practically minded, meaning they want security rather than esotericism. Go to any university first year phil. class and you'll see a much greater number of male students than female. Go to a second year class, and the female students will probably be only about 5-10%, and I think this ratio stays roughly the same through the philosophical progression from then on.

This.

Eh? So the Macedons conquering Egypt was against white people? Rome conquering Carthage was against white people? What the hell you smoking?

>Implying waging war is oppression

>Implying Perisa didn't conquer Egypt like 2-3 times before Macedonia
>Implying Carthage wasn't fighting the Greek territory in Italy for hundreds of years before the punic wars

wew

>Whites and Indians speak languages derived from Indo-European so that must mean their races are derived in the same way.

Language doesn't work like that. It isn't linear. Languages are often imposed on other groups either militarily or hegemonically.

Gunpowder/Guns
Sailing ships

>Ships

No.

>Gunpowder

Mostly yes, guns no.

Read Joanna Russ's How To Suppress Women's Writing, if you're actually looking for an answer

It actually works pretty well like that. Barring some of the more outstanding cases like the Roman Empire and the Islamic Caliphate, the imposition of a language is rarely widespread or permanent. But yes, sure, there was some grand white empire in 2000 BC that took over all of Harrappan civilization and imposed their language without ever themselves settling the region. And apparently I'm the /pol/ one.

lol. this is literal pseudo-science and thoroughly discredited as a way to predict common origin. ask any linguist.

I have, believe it or not. It's still pretty much the accepted theory. Just recently it was discovered that there was a relationship between some Siberian tribes and the Native American language group containing Navajo, which has been supported by haplogroup analysis. Bretty gool stuff iidssms

I should know better than to respond to bait, but:
>the appearance of genius valued above all else
You do realize that no less an authority than Nietzsche lays the blame for this almost entirely at the feet of that arch-Aryan, Wagner?

sure kid. the bering strait theory is also pseudo-science.

>Thinking being this reductive can in anyway be convincing.

WE NOT SOURRESS, WE RIGHT GOO HIGHKU

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_penis
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_penis_soup
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bile_bear
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_marriage_(Chinese)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Wang_Yue
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn_suicides

I RIGHT POETRY

I WAN DEATH
BUT NO KAN DIE
SAVE BY NET

>It actually works pretty well like that. Barring some of the more outstanding cases like the Roman Empire and the Islamic Caliphate, the imposition of a language is rarely widespread or permanent

Why don't the Chinese speak a wider variety of languages? Why has Gaelic almost died out? Why are most Aboriginal Australians unable to speak their native tongues with the exception of one or two words? The same question goes for many native peoples.

No one can seriously believe that whites and Indians split off genetically at the same time that Indo-European did.

that's semites

Are you implying the romans were somehow more "white" than phoenicians?

>No.
>>Gunpowder
>Mostly yes, guns no.

Large sailing boats were influenced by technology from Muslim lands. Before that, Europeans were stroking away with heaps of people rowing.

Mongols possessed primitive guns before the Europeans, and of course, rockets. Its a common misconception that they didn't. The europeans did, however, improve them greatly

Hmmm

cherrypicking much?

I can also post a bust of hannibal if you like

Ok, glad you're here to tell us that the accepted theories are pseudo-science. Thanks my man.

P.s. it's called the dene-yeniseian language family
Check out the paper linked in this article. Published in PNAS, of all places: qz.com/336504/a-massive-data-dive-proves-that-languages-and-genes-evolve-together/
>Why don't the Chinese speak a wider variety of languages
They do. Most Chinese can't understand each other except through the highly systematized writing system. It's interesting, a phonetically written language with wide literacy like Greek has changed very little relative to the amount of time it's been around, whereas one like Chinese with logographs is hardly recognizable in its archaic form.

Aussies did a pretty good job, I'll admit. Here's a hint: civilizations capable of mass education are better at educating en masse. This was likely not the case for nomads in 2000BC.

Most linguists and geneticists do believe that the linguistic and genetic split were contemporaneous.

I just read the url at the bottom of your pic, I didn't realise I was being trolled

Well played m'lad

>Biology/genes are 70% responsible for your IQ.
>There are people in Veeky Forums right now that believe this.

>chinese lit

>I would reckon there are actually more notable female than male authors under 60 right now.

Name three

What do you think it is? 50/50? Tabula Rasa. Tell me why niggers adopted by White cucks are geniouses?

E.L. James
J.K. Rowling
Suzanne Collins

xd

Establish first a criteria of what this percentage signifies. Probability of predicting a persons IQ based on their race adjusted for background?
How is background adjusted?

>Roman culture is Western culture dumbass
Funny idea coming from someone who asserts that biological differences in races is the determining factor of the advancement of society. But yeah, the Romans and Greeks were totally ethnically white lmao

>Funny idea coming from someone who asserts that biological differences in races is the determining factor of the advancement of society. But yeah, the Romans and Greeks were totally ethnically white lmao

Why do you believe that Ancient Romans and Ancient Greeks weren't white?

Me again, just wanted to add that some dialects of Chinese have changed so much that, despite its being logographic, they have been forced to add locally-flavored phonetic markers in order to distinguish between certain words and words usages(!)

I won't give a number because that'd be making baseless claims and I'm not that retarded, but consider that if we used the same testing methods we use today for testing IQ on white people from the 1940s the average IQ would be 80, which by modern standards would be borderline retardation. If biology was as big of a factor as you claim it was, then I guess evolution works much faster than we know of, since there was such a strong change in an almost biological factor in the matter of like 70 years at most.
You must also consider the fact that the average IQ of japs raised fast af after they made some changes to their educational system and your whole "biology is the main affector of IQ" hypothesis crumbles easily.

they had a few millennia head start

brown as fuck my dude

Have you seen greeks/sicilians

Only northern italians have white skin

Those aren't Ancient Romans or Ancient Greeks.

There are a series of historically documented invasions of those lower regions of Italy, and the Ottoman conquest of Greece, which can explain why Greeks and Italians of today in particular regions have brown complexions.

This doesn't mean they were brown 2000 years ago though.

>Me again, just wanted to add that some dialects of Chinese have changed so much that, despite its being logographic, they have been forced to add locally-flavored phonetic markers in order to distinguish between certain words and words usages(!)

This doesn't really support your point. If anything, the opposite.

This was meant for :

Because the bulk of the highest quality people are white males?

Sorry, you might have thought I'm the guy I quoted, but I meant that I'm this guy If you weren't mistaken, can I ask what makes you say that? Again, sorry for the lack of clarity.

>This doesn't mean they were brown 2000 years ago though.

Greeks literally looked down upon white guys, a pale skin was seen as an effeminate trait and therefore undesirable.
You're also leaving out the fact that the greeks in asia minor were mixed as fuck, and guess where pilosophy was invented m8, that's right, milesios.

I've honestly never cared about the skin colour of these people beyond just memeing about it

Really though it's not possible to live around the mediterranean and not eventually get brown skin so I find it highly unlikely that the greeks and romans really were white

>if we used the same testing methods we use today for testing IQ on white people from the 1940s the average IQ would be 80

And you don't think that's any indication towards the decrepit state of our education, demographics and general society. It's not surprising that a people who have moved from a literary society to a much more visual culture, hardly anybody had TVs in their homes during the 40s. Now you can literally bring a portable screen with you everywhere. It's not surprising that general intelligence has sunk. The relativity of IQ to modern Whites is not an argument debunking it's legitimacy. You are snarky about evolution and 70 years, but we are experiencing unprecedented change and the amount of stimulation, both audio and visual, will have surely affected the intelligence of our modern population. The fact that you do not consider this massive advancement in technology and the change it has brought about in society is telling of a narrow Weltanschauung. Your point about Japanese education is rather moot considering the education of the negro populations in the Americas and the African continent have varied and have yet to produce results akin to the Japanese. You must also consider the differences in studious cultures such as the Japanese, which will impact their success on standardized testing.

Reread what you quoted. It indicates that the average IQ has risen.

You're only backing up his point that ascertaining the contribution of genes to IQ is practically impossible

No african country has undergone the educational transformation Japan has

Also you're not addressing the fact that according to IQ tests we're supposed to be significantly smarter today than we were half a century ago, which is a stupid statement

>Your point about Japanese education is rather moot considering the education of the negro populations in the Americas and the African continent have varied and have yet to produce results akin to the Japanese.

Nigga, are you retarded? The education most poor people on america receive is absolute dumpster tier, and don't even get me started on Africa, you dumbfuck.

Well there must be a reason for that my boy?

I misread that statement, but that seems rather ludicrous. How would you even measure such a thing?

Clearly it's not impossible because it's evidenced everywhere. The most prosperous and sane societies are European or East Asian being highly influenced by European peoples (South Korea and Japan being the only two I would count since other East Asian countries are verifiable hell holes: see Singapore) Meanwhile Africa and South America, along with most of Asia and Arabia are insane relative to European prosperity. Their genes must have something to do with it no? Has 8 years of occupation in Iraq turned them into a peaceful democracy?