Up until the 18th century, Europe had normal relations with nonwhite nations. Brown and black people were regularly hired as sailors or soldiers and essentially treated as equals, especially if they became Christian.
But sometime around the mid-18th century, European states began seeing the governments of Asia and the Middle East as just potential subjects to be conquered.
What changed?
bourgeois middle-class mentality prevailed so everything which was not just like them had to be extinguished
The ability to go to such places, fight them, and win.
Europe cant do that shit between the 1500's-1700's (well, provided you aren'y a native american or some tribal people). Remember how the Ottomans alone were giving them a hard time? Now imagine starting shit with Ming/Qing China from, I dunno, one of your SEAsian colonies.
Social Darwinism
if non-europeans stagnated it would make sense for europeans to begin to look down on them.
Scientific and romantic inspired theories of race.
t. Caesar Batista
LIKES:
Corona
Revolution
THE PEOPLE
Subversiveness
Che Guevara
Castro
Emiliano Zapata
Weed
Bob Marley
[spoiler]Take a shower, cut your hair[/spoiler]
The secularization of the Europe
They started immigrating
Europe only achieved parity with Asian civilisation post-Reconquista. It took a while for them to pull ahead, and longer still for the past to be forgotten and European superiority to become the new norm.
The Americas had been colonized nd the technologically superior European states needed new clay
The major reason why the West subjugated the rest was because it could
Much like you genocide opponents in CIV games when your infantry, cavalry and artillery is two generations of technology ahead
> CIV IV, conscript infantry to slaughter musketmen rush
Proto-Industrialization,
The Scientific Revolution
And the Industrial Era
All of these threw the West years ahead of their African and Asian neighbors. Nationalism also heavily influenced views of other people as well.
actually i was aiming more for something like:
>t. Caesar, Julius
>LIKES
>Crowns
>Reaction
>THE PEOPLE(back then not the people now)
>Hierarchy
>Charlemagne
>Evola
>Alexander Macedon
>nubile slave boys
>Mozart
So it's democracy's fault?
Because most Europeans didn't have relations with them. They only knew of them but never had any real face to face interaction. Europe was one of the most advanced places during these times so it would be logical to assume that maybe people started looking down upon the other races because of that. Comparing rational thinking like maths and arts to tribal warship and chants can really set the tone of how different these cultures where and why one at the time may see themself as superior.
Are you fucking dense, OP? European Christians historically fucking hated the Muslim world.
Then they became powerful enough to conquer them, so they did. They had resources that the Europeans wanted to take.
Literally realist international relations. Power matters.
>also this
Good point man but what about the black aspect?
>Up until the 18th century, Europe had normal relations with nonwhite nations
Yeah, like constant warfare and raiding.
First of, one didn't actually have much contact with sub-saharans, how would they? There was nothing there, much like most of America.
>literally who is the guy in OPs picture
>who was Ahmad al-Mansour
>what was the Franco-Ottoman Alliance
>what was the Franco-Ottoman Alliance
An alliance of desperation because literally EVERYONE in Europe was related to Charles V in one way or another.
not desperation but pragmatism
nations, contrary to what /pol/ says, ally with each other not because of muh feels but because of pragmatis.
Muslims allied with Christians to fight against muslims and vice versa. People-nations switched sides when it suited them. Us vs Them ideology is a recent invention, coming from nationalism post frog rev.
Even then its only the hoi polloi who thinks emotionally, the leaders and the elite still act pragmatically, hence the defender of christendom can ally itself with a christian theocracy.
christian theocracy*
sorry for the brain far I meant islamic. (putin & mollahs)
>Muslims allied with Christians to fight against muslims and vice versa
That's true in the Middle East (Crusader States) but for a European nation to side with an Islamic nation invading Europe, that was a first in history. The only thing even remotely close to that was the French almost allying with the Mongols, but that was an alliance against another Muslim entity, and during a crusade, that never came to be.
You're right about pragmatism though, but I'm sure the fact that no other viable allies were present in Europe also played a role.
>European Christians
Catholics
Justify slavery
>implying the west hasn't been controlled by judeo-masonic forces ever since 1054.
>Up until the 18th century, Europe had normal relations with nonwhite nations.
Spanish Sugar Islands.
The only good relations they had were with a select few ... the divide between the rich and poor was extremely wide.
Democracy came in and gave everyone an equal chance to have a voice, then the rich people got jealous and started going against it by making social crutches and ways to control population, long and behold, the modern monetary system was put in place. Money fucked everything up.
>Persians/some Arabs/Indians/Chinese/Japanese etc
> No maths nor arts.
>Tribal chants
Not all noneuropeans were African or American indian tribesmen thanks.
Among many different cultures people tended to dislike black the colour/black people.
When some Arabs want to praise a man they say may Allah whiten his face, and when they want to insult a man they say may Allah blacken his face. Arabs used blacks as slaves for much longer than the Europeans did. In Indian people use skin whitening cream to look whiter. Lower castes tend to have darker skin.
I should mention that the mongols of the Ilkhanate were not muslims when they tried to ally the french. Hulagu was a philo-christian budhist and his first successors were either that or directly christians themselves.
>Up until the 18th century, Europe had normal relations with nonwhite nations. Brown and black people were regularly hired as sailors or soldiers and essentially treated as equals
Except that's literally false. Decisions by governments taken for pragmatical reasons do not reflect the vision of the people.
>the autism in that pic
Industrial revolution pulled Europe ahead of the curve and shot past the rest. This lead to the perception that Europe was superior, that whites were superior. People would come up with rationalization for such things, then later on Charles Darwin published his work and people rolled with that idea that whites were superior to negros and mongoloids due to evolution.
I mean who would or could fight against the scientific community? Yeah, that was that.
No niggers were seen as animals and slaves, asians as violent savages. Muslims however benefited from a massive movement of orientalism dating back to the crusades
No European nation ever won major influence within China. They only managed to force themselves into some port cities where they could subdue the populace with opium.
That was due to the great game, the european powers and japan were locked against each other
>who were russians
Well even Africans and many Native Americans had arts and maths.
I wasn't really clear, I suppose by tribesmen I'm excluding civilisations such as the Aztecs/Mayans/Incas etc and the west African states/Ethiopia etc
they suddenly realized that it was exceedingly easy to conquer such places, and later attempted to justify their occupation by reasoning that the people they had conquered were inferior to them.
it's all a bit circular. why did we conquer them? because they're inferior. why are they inferior? because we conquered them.
Russians contended with Britain, Japan, France, and Germany over fucking China.
And if you're referring to the Soviet Union, sure...for a while. And then the USSR has to fucking contend with China itself.
Because they could
If you look at the time of travel from Rome to its provinces, you'll notice that the areas where it would took more than a month to travel from the capital to the place were only temporary held.
Before 18th century, travelling to let's say South-East Asia took very long time and simply couldn't be organised and controlled easily. The 18th century has saw improvements in shipbuilding, navigation as well as the beginning of the textile industry which allowed for producing cheap sails and ropes and made the entire "shipping things to faraway land" much easier.
It was the first time that a Christian state allied with a muslim power invading Europe, and it shocked all christianity at the time.
And yes, it was out of butthurt and desperation because France was the one attacking starting wars of aggression (and losing them) with Charles V, not the other way round.
>European Christians historically fucking hated the Muslim world.
Depends on nationality, really. Majority of the ones who hated them were Balkanites or Poles or something. French for example maintained normal relations with Ottoman Empire and so did Prussians.
Even by early 20th century the popular image of muslim world was a land full of wise Sultans, desert cities, exotic women... very romanticised to put it short.
During the reconquista, Christian and muslims states allied with each other plenty of times to fight their brethren as well.
Basically Europeans realized they now had the ability to kick the shit out of everyone.
They then proceeded to do so.