I just read a fascinating article by Roger Cohen, in the New York Times, where he postulates that the white man's era is virtually at an end. In support of his theory, he contrasts the booming economies of Asian countries, like India and China, with the economic decline of the United States and many countries in Europe.
I would not go so far as to state that centuries of world domination by the white man has ended, but it is heading there; and at a far more rapid pace than he realizes. Those who scoff at this absurdity may not, perhaps, be aware that in the 17th century, India and China did indeed account for more than half of the world's economic output. The pendulum is now accelerating back.
Those who believe that it is the inherent destiny of the fair-skinned races to be superior to their darker counterparts would probably point to Africa as justification. I admit that there is some truth in this assertion. Until fairly recently, virtually the whole of Africa was ruled by white colonial powers; Britain, France, Holland and Portugal. After these nations were bled dry by World War II, they were forced to surrender their possessions. Rhodesia and South Africa were the last holdouts. Rhodesia, now called Zimbabwe, is the most glaring example of black mismanagement. A country rich in natural resources, which once had the second highest standard of living on the African continent, is now a basket case; with runaway inflation eerily reminiscent of the Weimar Republic in Germany. South Africa may have rid itself of the scourge of apartheid, but it is a country where crime is rampant.
The other side of the coin is to be found in countries like India and China; and the Asian tigers like South Korea, Singapore and Vietnam. Yes, that's right, I said Vietnam. A country, a good portion of which the United States tried obliterate with napalm bombs - and expended tens of thousands of American lives in the process - now has one of the fastest growing economies in the world. Ironically, it is also a major trading partner of its former enemy. China is already the world's second biggest economy, after the United States; and with its economy rapidly accelerating to meet America's down-spiraling one, it is only a matter of time before it gains the number one spot.
Some Americans would scoff that America remains the world's sole superpower. In terms of military muscle, perhaps it is - and will probably remain so because of its huge lead. But history has shown us that, in the final analysis, money is always the trump card. Take the American Civil War, for example. It is generally acknowledged that the South had better soldiers and generals superior in strategic and tactical planning. Yet, it lost because the North had more money.
If many white men have great difficulty in acknowledging the new world order, I can understand and sympathize with their bewilderment. The white man and his tribe have been the big guns of the world for so very long, that they do not remember it being any other way. As a citizen of a country which was dominated by the British for almost three centuries, I cannot claim to have experienced their arrogance first hand (I am old, but not that old), but I have heard enough stories from my grandfather to make it seem almost real.
The Imperial British did not just rule India, they subjugated it. Even the most illiterate, ignorant white Englishman was considered superior to the most educated, erudite Indian. And it was not just an attitude, it was state policy. Except for a few privileged Maharajas, many clubs and fancy hotels were barred to even wealthy Indians; and no Indian could head a police force, say. The British cloaked their arrogance in benevolence, of course and, in truth, they did not display any overt cruelty towards their subjects. At the same time, they never let them forget who was boss. The British still regard India as a Third World country - and in some respects, it is - but the reality is that India's economy has far outstripped Britain's. As Cohen mentions in his article, by 2030, India will probably overtake Japan as the world's third biggest economy - behind the United States and China.
Asia still has a long way to go; and it is still a continent of stark contrasts. A considerable proportion of its population remains mired in poverty. However, at the other end of the scale, an increasing number of Asians are flaunting their wealth. This is borne out by the fact that almost all Western luxury brands - from Armani to Louis Vuitton to Rolls Royce - are scampering to set up shop in Asia. They are enjoying far better sales than in their home countries.
Of course, there are also booming economies in the Arab world - notably Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates - but their prosperity in inextricably linked to the price of oil. Right now, they are riding a wave; principally because misguided policies by some Western leaders have raised the price of oil to stratospheric levels; but the bubble has to burst some day.
While I largely agree with the views expressed by Cohen in his NYT article, I am not holding my breath. I do not expect to see a new world order in my lifetime, at least. Asians may already be the de facto top dogs, but it is going to take them some time to grasp this new reality. They have to overcome a mindset forged by centuries of history and tradition. It won't be easy.




Comments: 16
In fact, what do you think most of this ado about control of our borders in the USA is all about? It's not about terrorism, It's probably more about white majority wanting to stay that way. I think that is more of a subconscious factor, we cloth it in a lot of other rationalizations and reasons.
This theory really is nothing unique; its been happening since WWII.
The other factor you did not mention in this is the practice of birth control that is more prevalant with whites and the fact this practice has occurred much longer than the more recent practices (in the last 10-20 years) in China. Many other countries still do not practice much birth control, and I don't know of a predominantly white country that does not practice birth control or have large numbers of abortions.
So you can say, if you want that whites are self destructing. That is as plausible of a theory as anything else.
Or you can suffer in ignorance as we spiral down.
I will agree with you but not for a reason you will agree with. The reason I think the white man has dominated as you refer to it is more in tune with blessings of God. The white race accepted and spread the Gospel of Christ more readily than other races and nations (some due to proximity and who was in power, some perhaps due to more of a void in spiritual faith; India has their Hindu and Asia has had Buddhism longer than the beginning of Christianity's spread, and did not receive this message as readily. They still do not to some degree, although China and South Korea may have more missionaries for Christ than the U.S.A. If they don't yet, they soon will). God blessed the countries of those that were spreading the Gospel with prosperity(dominination in your words). Now that white men have no need for God and their countries have become increasingly secular, God's blessings are not as manifest.
Unfortunately and sadly for the white race, the Christian message got lost in interpretation along the way and instead of loving your brother as Jesus said, we as a race exploited our brothers. I believe Ghandi said he would gladly have been a follower of Jesus, had it not been for the supposed white Christian's he ran into. It is said we are so eager to spread our message at times that we forego living it.
I know this is not the only factor, but I think this factor is strong. Another factor is really due to this new faith, part of the message is to spread this, and with that was a spread of the economies. We want to blame missionaries on one hand for imposing their belief (or spreading them, depending on who is making the argument) but do not want to give credit for being a catalyst for the spread of western trade.
The domination was also more a result of actively seeking to spread; Marco Polo went to China to trade. The east was more xenophopic and cautious in accepting of this. Now that they have warmed up to it in the last century or so, they have found they have a great strength and knack for it.
What concerns me the most is that these countries have developed too quickly, without adequate controls or the ability to manage that growth so that it benefits their own populations. They appear to be petri dishes exhibiting the same pattern of mistakes that the European and American nations made over a greater span of time. In their rush to economic dominance, they are making short-sighted decisions, in order to facilitate growth and power, which will hasten their eventual demise without creating any of the flexibility that the European and US societies have been able, whether consciously or not, to insert in their structures.
China is already seeing movement out of their market to even more risky emerging market nations such as Thailand and Vietnam. There are hundreds of decaying manufacturing plants in China already due to this quick switch to cheaper labor - and these have just been built in the last few years. This is not a good sign for extended success.
India is, as you state, enjoying a burgeoning wealthy class, but instead of recognizing that this wealth is coming from the backs of the populace and trying to bring up the general health of the entire country, it is making the same mistakes of greed and gluttony that Europe and the US is now seeing the results of in their recessions, and perhaps eventual depressions.
Rotary friends of mine just returned from a trip to India where they travelled around distributing polio vaccine. If you do not learn from the mistakes of capitalism gone crazy made in the west, and start taking care of your existing populations from a health and economic standpoint, your standing will be short-lived and your fall fast and long.
The Holy Roman Empire (the beginning of the last Axial Age) set basic rules for the interaction of countries and distribution of power. The Reformation allowed Protestants to succeed monetarily in ways that the HRE did not, and that in turn allowed Protestants to become the drivers of what we now call Western Civilization even though Protestants have always been less numerous than Catholics.
Whether or not Asia will "rise" will remain dependent on the same historical issues as have always been controlling: whether or not the new societies and newfound wealth translate into long-lasting, sustainable power rather than short term bursts of successes. History measures success in centuries, not decades.
The "x" factor in this Axial Age is globalization; never before has the rise of a world power been simultaneously intertwined with potential successes from other areas around the globe . Only time will tell how this one plays out.
I found this article to be very interesting and a learning for me. Thank you for putting it on Gather.