[alexander_busek]

Instead, those people were subjected to the 'institutional framework' of Rome—its laws, its infrastructure, and its systems. They 'waxed' from that primitive state to become the architects of the modern world.

Conrad assiduously elides the draconian measures which the Romans had to implement to do that.

I don't think that the modern U.S. would be keen on, say, the mass-crucifixion of intransigent newcomers slow in adopting our cultural values.

Regards,

[ek_hornbeck]

In Heart of Darkness, Conrad attacks the brutal methods towards the natives in the Belgian Congo used by King Leopold's government and by the privateers. However, while condemning sadistic acts like chopping off hands (or heads) for disobedience, Conrad did not believe that the natives were in any way "equal" to the colonists, however. The natives aboard Marlowe's boat are portrayed as either savages or self-important buffoons.

[Cronos]

The point is simple - the ‘waxing and waning’ of civilizations is a product of social and institutional systems, not genetic blueprints.

Whether Rome used crucifixion or modern nations use legal, economic, and educational systems, the mechanism of change is the same: when a population is held to a clear, consistent set of expectations and granted access to the same tools and systems, they change.

Your entire argument is predicated on the idea that these populations are inherently incapable of adapting, regardless of the system they are in. I am pointing out that the ancestors of modern Europeans were once considered just as ‘unfit’ as you claim others are today—and they proved you wrong.

If you believe that the difference between a ‘thriving’ civilization and a ‘primitive’ one is purely biological, you have to explain why the ‘biology’ of the British shifted so drastically from the Roman era to the Industrial Revolution. If you admit that their growth was due to the ‘software’ of their institutions, then you have effectively admitted that your racial determinism is wrong.