This will be poorly sourced, I don't bother to defend myself much on this forum since it's large and full of trolls. If the lack of sourcing bothers you my suggestion is to deal with it. Historically, "white privilege" is connected to white colonialism. Colonialism never would have happened without Muslim aggression, as I will explain. The end of the pre-colonial period is arguably marked by the fall of the Byzantine Empire to the Ottoman Empire, the conversion of Constantinople to Istanbul and Byzantium into Turkey. The Ottomans eventually exterminated or forcefully converted all of the Christians from Istanbul going eastwards, and even though most Turks today are still generically similar to most Greeks, the differences are pretty apparent and need no further explanation. Following this event, western white people were pretty worried that they would be next. One of the more desperate attempts to prevent this came from a King of Spain, who commissioned people to sail around Africa to try and reach China. The reason for this is that Muslim power had to do with their control of the "silk road". This was a necessary route to engage in trade between the east (China) and the west (Europe). Control over the silk road made the Ottomans rich and being rich made them powerful, which in turn made them dangerous. The "sale around Africa" process met with mixed success. It worked, but the journeys were long and dangerous. There was little if any more profit to be made following that route than there was working with the Muslims along the Silk Road. But it did lead to one other event which we all know, that of Columbus insisting that the "world is round" theory was correct and that therefore he could reach China by sailing west. The thing to understand here is that if the Ottomans hadn't been bent on destroying western, Christian, Byzantine/Roman culture, western people never would have started sailing around Africa, and without that precedent Christopher Columbus would have been a laughing stock; if he ever got the idea in the first place to try such a thing to begin with, which seems unlikely. Let's also acknowledge that the Ottoman desire to attack the west is not something that Muslims can be talked out of. If I remember correctly, the Muslim religion says that Rome has to be defeated before judgment day can arrive. The Ottomans hoped that destroying Byzantium would count and when it didn't, they decided that physically going to the city of Rome would be necessary, and they would presumably move on to the entirety of the Christian religion after that. One of the reasons this concerns me is because an entirely Muslim world + weapons of mass destruction would probably mean the end of the world. It's sad that white people are basically on track for extinction in western countries when the people who are going to replace us are primarily not the type that can be trusted with exploding objects. But the biggest irony might be that if it weren't for Muslim aggression, colonialism and "white privilege" might not exist in the first place.
Oh so Columbus was looking for a trade route to China? That must be why we have the West China's and not West Indies and why native americans were not called Indians but Chinamen! Poorly sourced is an understatement!
The West Indies are roughly the same latitude as India, so Columbus thought he landed in India. Sailing in those days was a difficult business. The winds and currents don't always allow you to sail in the most direct route. It is extremely plausible to suggest that Muslim domination of the trade routes contributed greatly to the exploration and subsequent colonization of the world by the Europeans. That Columbus wanted to find an alternate route to China and so break the monopoly of the Portuguese who held the secrets of navigating (those old debbils, prevailing winds and current) around Africa is well known.
