White People and History

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Defeat at home front was because at first they decided to escalate slowly. Liberal democracy wasn't at fault but administration tby.

The media freedom allowed propaganda actions like the Tet offensive to influence general opinion.

You're using a very narrow view of "propaganda".

Given the fact we were in Vietnam for approximately 20 years, I can conclude you don't know much about propaganda either.

[Esternial]

Power is the only way to measure superiority. Europeans have demonstrated themselves to be the most powerful on the world; the greatest most powerful nations were built by Europeans.

*pats*

That's really cute and all, but your view of history is inherently myopic and stupid, as demonstrated by your other posts which I've had to address.

I'd say Persian, Mediterranean, Chinese, and Greek civilizations have contributed more than some hillbillies from the Caucasus ever managed to accomplish.

Sure, they made the modern world the way it is, but let's not pretend for a second their predecessors were not greater.

He'd be right if this were Age of Empires, though.

Oh wait...Monument Victory.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

*pats*

That's really cute and all, but your view of history is inherently myopic and stupid, as demonstrated by your other posts which I've had to address.

I'd say Persian, Mediterranean, Chinese, and Greek civilizations have contributed more than some hillbillies from the Caucasus ever managed to accomplish.

Sure, they made the modern world the way it is, but let's not pretend for a second their predecessors were not greater.

Now, I'm not supporting eurocentrism, but...

Do keep in mind that those Caucasus hillbillies were also the ancestors of three of those civilizations (Persian, Greek & Mediterranean).

I'd say you have a point, but there's the other point that most of modern European history has been dominated by the Germanic tribes which overwhelmed the Roman empire and shifted the geopolitical climate to what it is the modern West.

So, what I mean by "hillbilly" is slightly different than what I mean by "Caucasian".

[Themiclesia]

Power is the only way to measure superiority. Europeans have demonstrated themselves to be the most powerful on the world; the greatest most powerful nations were built by Europeans.

And how does one measure power objectively?

Religion, a concept of no physical presence, is certainly one of the most powerful entities in the world; look at the all the war it has caused. A very well-titled documentary on classical Athens is called the "empire of the mind", and I think it perfect for the influence Athenians still have upon us; those ideas still ring true in our minds, and force us to take action for their defence. Athens, however, is not around anymore.

[Benuty]

Power is the only way to measure superiority. Europeans have demonstrated themselves to be the most powerful on the world; the greatest most powerful nations were built by Europeans.

And how does one measure power objectively?

Religion, a concept of no physical presence, is certainly one of the most powerful entities in the world; look at the all the war it has caused. A very well-titled documentary on classical Athens is called the "empire of the mind", and I think it perfect for the influence Athenians still have upon us; those ideas still ring true in our minds, and force us to take action for their defence. Athens, however, is not around anymore.

7 percent of wars (caused directly by religious nature) does not equal the totality of wars.

[Sanctissima]

Now, I'm not supporting eurocentrism, but...

Do keep in mind that those Caucasus hillbillies were also the ancestors of three of those civilizations (Persian, Greek & Mediterranean).

I'd say you have a point, but there's the other point that most of modern European history has been dominated by the Germanic tribes which overwhelmed the Roman empire and shifted the geopolitical climate to what it is the modern West.

So, what I mean by "hillbilly" is slightly different than what I mean by "Caucasian".

Good point, but, from what I know, there's a fairly good chance that most European civilizations (and I mean this with a purely historical basis) were at least loosely products of the Aryans, which were more or less Caucasians. Chances are, they started out as nomads on the Northeast coast of the Caspian Sea, migrated South, probably violently conquered the Indus Valley Civilization, and then split up. Some went East to peninsular India, while others moved West, forming the Mede tribes which, in turn, went west to Europe, their descendants likely destroyed the Mycenaean civilization of early Greece, and might have even interbred with central European tribes.

So, basically, the Aryans (or Caucasians, take your pick) were, to a certain extent, predecessors of the Median Empire, which eventually became the Persian Empire, which before that saw some of their own ancestors go West into Europe and mix with the early Greeks and Germanics. So, to some regard, most of European civilization can trace its roots back to semi-nomadic peoples a little bit to the East of the modern Caucasus.

I hope I didn't loop around too much with that explanation, but basically, what I was trying to say is that the Germanic tribes which replaced the Western Roman Empire were descendants of the Caucasians/Aryans.

[Len Hyet]

Power is the only way to measure superiority. Europeans have demonstrated themselves to be the most powerful on the world; the greatest most powerful nations were built by Europeans.

*pats*

That's really cute and all, but your view of history is inherently myopic and stupid, as demonstrated by your other posts which I've had to address.

I'd say Persian, Mediterranean, Chinese, and Greek civilizations have contributed more than some hillbillies from the Caucasus ever managed to accomplish.

Sure, they made the modern world the way it is, but let's not pretend for a second their predecessors were not greater.

I'm a tad confused, are you saying Mediterranean and Greek civilizations are both different and non-European?

Not bashing on your whole point here, Persian and Chinese civilization was incredible, and to use the original definition of the word, awesome.

[Themiclesia]

I'd say you have a point, but there's the other point that most of modern European history has been dominated by the Germanic tribes which overwhelmed the Roman empire and shifted the geopolitical climate to what it is the modern West.

So, what I mean by "hillbilly" is slightly different than what I mean by "Caucasian".

Good point, but, from what I know, there's a fairly good chance that most European civilizations (and I mean this with a purely historical basis) were at least loosely products of the Aryans, which were more or less Caucasians. Chances are, they started out as nomads on the Northeast coast of the Caspian Sea, migrated South, probably violently conquered the Indus Valley Civilization, and then split up. Some went East to peninsular India, while others moved West, forming the Mede tribes which, in turn, went west to Europe, their descendants likely destroyed the Mycenaean civilization of early Greece, and might have even interbred with central European tribes.

So, basically, the Aryans (or Caucasians, take your pick) were, to a certain extent, predecessors of the Median Empire, which eventually became the Persian Empire, which before that saw some of their own ancestors go West into Europe and mix with the early Greeks and Germanics. So, to some regard, most of European civilization can trace its roots back to semi-nomadic peoples a little bit to the East of the modern Caucasus.

I hope I didn't loop around too much with that explanation, but basically, what I was trying to say is that the Germanic tribes which replaced the Western Roman Empire were descendants of the Caucasians/Aryans.

I think we're dealing with pre-history here, and I'd be hesitant to make such general statements about what transpired during this illiterate period, especially when the principals are nomads, who tend to leave behind little record compared to more settled cultures in any era. Proto-Indo-European, if it ever existed as a single language spoken by a single community, is postulated to have existed at least 3000 years before Christ, and the only communities capable of keeping records at that time were the Egyptians and the Mesopotamians, neither of whom had significant interaction with this conjectural community of Indo-Europeans. The Mycenaean Greek civilization, which existed before the coming of the Greeks, was Greek anyway, evidenced by their speaking of a Hellenic language; they displaced the maritime, mercantile hegemony of the Minoans c. 1600 B.C., and that's already more than a millennium removed from the common origin and dispersal of the Indo-European people. The most direct attestations of primitive formations in Indo-European language have been taken as the more credible signs of proximity whether geographically or ethnically to the Indo-European people. Evidence of substrata within all the more "modern" Indo-European languages show strong native influence on the speech of the Indo-Europeans who have come to settle across Europe, and I should suggest that, as far as culture is concerned, Indo-European culture is poorly conserved in all its modern manifestations; nomadic culture throughout history has always been eclipsed by sedentary culture, and Indo-European culture, if it be a nomadic one, might not be all that different, but their language surely has come to encompass a plurality of humans.

Look at what we find when Indo-European mingle with local populace:

Proto-Aryas + native Indians = India
Proto-Medes + mesopotamians (itself Semitic + Sumerian) = the Persian Empire
Proto-Hellens + Minoans = Mycenaean Greece and classical Greece
etc.

And what do we find of unadulterated, pure Indo-European culture? Almost nothing. They don't even qualify for civilization under some standards because they didn't write, and none of the major scripts have an Indo-European origin.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

*pats*

That's really cute and all, but your view of history is inherently myopic and stupid, as demonstrated by your other posts which I've had to address.

I'd say Persian, Mediterranean, Chinese, and Greek civilizations have contributed more than some hillbillies from the Caucasus ever managed to accomplish.

Sure, they made the modern world the way it is, but let's not pretend for a second their predecessors were not greater.

I'm a tad confused, are you saying Mediterranean and Greek civilizations are both different and non-European?

Not bashing on your whole point here, Persian and Chinese civilization was incredible, and to use the original definition of the word, awesome.

Nah.

Mediterranean and Greek civilizations are inherently European.

However, her views of history are pretty much "Let's look at Europe" when she really means "Let's look at Europe AFTER the ancient civilizations".

Because honestly, most of what modern Europe is has no significant links to the Roman Empire as much as it has of Germanic tribes NORTH of the Roman borders. It'd be like saying the U.S. Rural South is so much better than all other regions combined without being critical and just spouting shit.

[Len Hyet]

I'm a tad confused, are you saying Mediterranean and Greek civilizations are both different and non-European?

Not bashing on your whole point here, Persian and Chinese civilization was incredible, and to use the original definition of the word, awesome.

Nah.

Mediterranean and Greek civilizations are inherently European.

However, her views of history are pretty much "Let's look at Europe" when she really means "Let's look at Europe AFTER the ancient civilizations".

Because honestly, most of what modern Europe is has no links to the Roman Empire as much as it has of Germanic tribes NORTH of the Roman borders. It'd be like saying the U.S. Rural South is so much better than all other regions combined without being critical and just spouting shit.

B-b-b-but muh heritage
Muh culture

Yeah I get what you're saying. Europe was largely influenced by Germanic civilization more than Mediterranean.

[Themiclesia]

And how does one measure power objectively?

Religion, a concept of no physical presence, is certainly one of the most powerful entities in the world; look at the all the war it has caused. A very well-titled documentary on classical Athens is called the "empire of the mind", and I think it perfect for the influence Athenians still have upon us; those ideas still ring true in our minds, and force us to take action for their defence. Athens, however, is not around anymore.

7 percent of wars (caused directly by religious nature) does not equal the totality of wars.

I don't think I have stated that religion was the sole cause of war. I'm merely stating its power and influence even though it has no physical presence.

[Themiclesia]

Nah.

Mediterranean and Greek civilizations are inherently European.

However, her views of history are pretty much "Let's look at Europe" when she really means "Let's look at Europe AFTER the ancient civilizations".

Because honestly, most of what modern Europe is has no links to the Roman Empire as much as it has of Germanic tribes NORTH of the Roman borders. It'd be like saying the U.S. Rural South is so much better than all other regions combined without being critical and just spouting shit.

B-b-b-but muh heritage
Muh culture

Yeah I get what you're saying. Europe was largely influenced by Germanic civilization more than Mediterranean.

While the Germanic languages are by structure and origin Indo-Euroepan, I don't think the speakers of the proto-language are ethnically similar to whoever the original Indo-Europeans are; a significant portion of the vocabulary in Germanic languages is non-Indo-European, or have no cognates in other Indo-European languages, or cannot be reconstructed from a known Indo-European root.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Nah.

Mediterranean and Greek civilizations are inherently European.

However, her views of history are pretty much "Let's look at Europe" when she really means "Let's look at Europe AFTER the ancient civilizations".

Because honestly, most of what modern Europe is has no links to the Roman Empire as much as it has of Germanic tribes NORTH of the Roman borders. It'd be like saying the U.S. Rural South is so much better than all other regions combined without being critical and just spouting shit.

B-b-b-but muh heritage
Muh culture

Yeah I get what you're saying. Europe was largely influenced by Germanic civilization more than Mediterranean.

That brings me to a major point here that I argue too:

That Modern European civilization is not as mighty as the Ancient Civilization's might was.

The main reason is that, compared to the major ancient civilizations, our modern geopolitical climate pales in comparison when it comes to dominance, influence, and power.

Putting it from the age of imperialism (c. 1500 AD) we barely had 400 years of a run for an empire and colonialism. Nowadays the U.S. and Russia are merely over 60 years old in their dominance as superpowers, which is the post-modern political equivalent of the Romans, and we haven't influenced as many people's laws during that time, in fact a majority of the world has sour sentiments over interventionism and colonialism and us pushing our ideas into them, something the Romans kinda didn't have after they were a superpower through the assimilation and absorption of other cultures and their incredible tolerance of other cultures (as long as they said "we will join your empire" willingly, which hardly happened).

If anyone could play the political game better and empire-building, were the ones who actually were not complete fascists. And today, being honest and critical, the Germanic tribes from the North aren't necessarily the mighty successors of the Romans.

[Themiclesia]

Why is nobody responding to me?

[Immoren]

B-b-b-but muh heritage
Muh culture

Yeah I get what you're saying. Europe was largely influenced by Germanic civilization more than Mediterranean.

While the Germanic languages are by structure and origin Indo-Euroepan, I don't think the speakers of the proto-language are ethnically similar to whoever the original Indo-Europeans are; a significant portion of the vocabulary in Germanic languages is non-Indo-European, or have no cognates in other Indo-European languages, or cannot be reconstructed from a known Indo-European root.

Language isn't probably a good indicator of ethnicity anyway.

[Sanctissima]

Good point, but, from what I know, there's a fairly good chance that most European civilizations (and I mean this with a purely historical basis) were at least loosely products of the Aryans, which were more or less Caucasians. Chances are, they started out as nomads on the Northeast coast of the Caspian Sea, migrated South, probably violently conquered the Indus Valley Civilization, and then split up. Some went East to peninsular India, while others moved West, forming the Mede tribes which, in turn, went west to Europe, their descendants likely destroyed the Mycenaean civilization of early Greece, and might have even interbred with central European tribes.

So, basically, the Aryans (or Caucasians, take your pick) were, to a certain extent, predecessors of the Median Empire, which eventually became the Persian Empire, which before that saw some of their own ancestors go West into Europe and mix with the early Greeks and Germanics. So, to some regard, most of European civilization can trace its roots back to semi-nomadic peoples a little bit to the East of the modern Caucasus.

I hope I didn't loop around too much with that explanation, but basically, what I was trying to say is that the Germanic tribes which replaced the Western Roman Empire were descendants of the Caucasians/Aryans.

I think we're dealing with pre-history here, and I'd be hesitant to make such general statements about what transpired during this illiterate period, especially when the principals are nomads, who tend to leave behind little record compared to more settled cultures in any era. Proto-Indo-European, if it ever existed as a single language spoken by a single community, is postulated to have existed at least 3000 years before Christ, and the only communities capable of keeping records at that time were the Egyptians and the Mesopotamians, neither of whom had significant interaction with this conjectural community of Indo-Europeans. The Mycenaean Greek civilization, which existed before the coming of the Greeks, was Greek anyway, evidenced by their speaking of a Hellenic language; they displaced the maritime, mercantile hegemony of the Minoans c. 1600 B.C., and that's already more than a millennium removed from the common origin and dispersal of the Indo-European people. The most direct attestations of primitive formations in Indo-European language have been taken as the more credible signs of proximity whether geographically or ethnically to the Indo-European people. Evidence of substrata within all the more "modern" Indo-European languages show strong native influence on the speech of the Indo-Europeans who have come to settle across Europe, and I should suggest that, as far as culture is concerned, Indo-European culture is poorly conserved in all its modern manifestations; nomadic culture throughout history has always been eclipsed by sedentary culture, and Indo-European culture, if it be a nomadic one, might not be all that different, but their language surely has come to encompass a plurality of humans.

Look at what we find when Indo-European mingle with local populace:

Proto-Aryas + native Indians = India
Proto-Medes + mesopotamians (itself Semitic + Sumerian) = the Persian Empire
Proto-Hellens + Minoans = Mycenaean Greece and classical Greece
etc.

And what do we find of unadulterated, pure Indo-European culture? Almost nothing. They don't even qualify for civilization under some standards because they didn't write, and none of the major scripts have an Indo-European origin.

I agree with you completely, although, I never really stated that the Aryans, or their descendants were much for culture. Basically, they were good at killing and having sex.

You're quite right, there's really no such thing as Indo-European culture, since, quite simply, they mixed in with already established cultures. Although, my main point is not so much the cultural impact of Indo-Europeans, so much as it is their relatively quick migration and "spreading out" to intermingle with much of Europe and western Asiatic populations.

[Czechanada]

If anything, the "Roman culture" has dominated and influenced history the most. Yet Romans weren't exclusively white.

Such an idea also negates contributions from other cultures, e.g. Arabs and algebra.

Next time you do some algebra - thank an Arab.

It was technically the Greeks and Babylonians to thank; Not the Arabs; Also, Al-Khwarizimi was Persian and not Arab.

[Themiclesia]

While the Germanic languages are by structure and origin Indo-Euroepan, I don't think the speakers of the proto-language are ethnically similar to whoever the original Indo-Europeans are; a significant portion of the vocabulary in Germanic languages is non-Indo-European, or have no cognates in other Indo-European languages, or cannot be reconstructed from a known Indo-European root.

Language isn't probably a good indicator of ethnicity anyway.

But it's the only reliable one, even if not a good one. If we speak of ethnicity in terms of pure biological relationship, we may never find out about anyone's ethnicity.

[Themiclesia]

I think we're dealing with pre-history here, and I'd be hesitant to make such general statements about what transpired during this illiterate period, especially when the principals are nomads, who tend to leave behind little record compared to more settled cultures in any era. Proto-Indo-European, if it ever existed as a single language spoken by a single community, is postulated to have existed at least 3000 years before Christ, and the only communities capable of keeping records at that time were the Egyptians and the Mesopotamians, neither of whom had significant interaction with this conjectural community of Indo-Europeans. The Mycenaean Greek civilization, which existed before the coming of the Greeks, was Greek anyway, evidenced by their speaking of a Hellenic language; they displaced the maritime, mercantile hegemony of the Minoans c. 1600 B.C., and that's already more than a millennium removed from the common origin and dispersal of the Indo-European people. The most direct attestations of primitive formations in Indo-European language have been taken as the more credible signs of proximity whether geographically or ethnically to the Indo-European people. Evidence of substrata within all the more "modern" Indo-European languages show strong native influence on the speech of the Indo-Europeans who have come to settle across Europe, and I should suggest that, as far as culture is concerned, Indo-European culture is poorly conserved in all its modern manifestations; nomadic culture throughout history has always been eclipsed by sedentary culture, and Indo-European culture, if it be a nomadic one, might not be all that different, but their language surely has come to encompass a plurality of humans.

Look at what we find when Indo-European mingle with local populace:

Proto-Aryas + native Indians = India
Proto-Medes + mesopotamians (itself Semitic + Sumerian) = the Persian Empire
Proto-Hellens + Minoans = Mycenaean Greece and classical Greece
etc.

And what do we find of unadulterated, pure Indo-European culture? Almost nothing. They don't even qualify for civilization under some standards because they didn't write, and none of the major scripts have an Indo-European origin.

I agree with you completely, although, I never really stated that the Aryans, or their descendants were much for culture. Basically, they were good at killing and having sex.

You're quite right, there's really no such thing as Indo-European culture, since, quite simply, they mixed in with already established cultures. Although, my main point is not so much the cultural impact of Indo-Europeans, so much as it is their relatively quick migration and "spreading out" to intermingle with much of Europe and western Asiatic populations.

All nomads are good at going about because they have (more) convenient means of transport.

The theory of the conquest of India is no longer as accepted as it once was; we now know that conquest alone never results in cultural integration. The Mongols conquered almost all of China in the 1290s, but by the 1390s most Chinese people didn't consider themselves Mongol, but many Mongols did consider themselves Chinese, or at least spoke a Chinese dialect, wore Chinese clothing woven from Chinese fabrics, ate Chinese food, and abided by Chinese decorum.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

You are clearly stupid. Africa and India will become Chinese colonies within our lifetimes. You don't know what the hell you're talking about. Go back to school and get an education.

The Chinese are already colonizing east Africa. They will replicate the British Raj and use India's class divide to colonize. India will host cheap labor and Africa will become a giant mine for China.

Get an education or you'll be like this OP who created this thread.

*** Warned for flaming ***

Oh, you're just an idiot then.

You're giving me a larger sense of self satisfaction, dealing with the fact that all that oppose me are as moronic as you.

*** Warned for flaming ***

[-Ebola-]

Ach! I don't want a mutation. It's not really that important for me to be able to tell races apart.

Then why are you so consigned to blacks, that many have started calling blacks "Ebola-Americans"

Have I been infecting a disproportionate number of blacks?

I know I live in a mostly black neighborhood, but I haven't been purposely targeting them. I thought some of my cousins had infected white people, but I can't exactly ask them about it since they were all murdered by your doctors and hazmat crews.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Oh, you're just an idiot then.

You're giving me a larger sense of self satisfaction, dealing with the fact that all that oppose me are as moronic as you.

I mean. If that helps you sleep at night then sure.

Just don't expect us to take you much more seriously about your knowledge on the subject.

[Sanctissima]

I agree with you completely, although, I never really stated that the Aryans, or their descendants were much for culture. Basically, they were good at killing and having sex.

You're quite right, there's really no such thing as Indo-European culture, since, quite simply, they mixed in with already established cultures. Although, my main point is not so much the cultural impact of Indo-Europeans, so much as it is their relatively quick migration and "spreading out" to intermingle with much of Europe and western Asiatic populations.

All nomads are good at going about because they have (more) convenient means of transport.

The theory of the conquest of India is no longer as accepted as it once was; we now know that conquest alone never results in cultural integration. The Mongols conquered almost all of China in the 1290s, but by the 1390s most Chinese people didn't consider themselves Mongol, but many Mongols did consider themselves Chinese, or at least spoke a Chinese dialect, wore Chinese clothing woven from Chinese fabrics, ate Chinese food, and abided by Chinese decorum.

True, but judging by how there's no evidence that the Indus Valley Civilization maintained an active army, I'd say that at least the conquest of the region encompassing modern Pakistan and Northwest India is likely.

[Planita]

Only if you're studying western history...

^^

[Themiclesia]

All nomads are good at going about because they have (more) convenient means of transport.

The theory of the conquest of India is no longer as accepted as it once was; we now know that conquest alone never results in cultural integration. The Mongols conquered almost all of China in the 1290s, but by the 1390s most Chinese people didn't consider themselves Mongol, but many Mongols did consider themselves Chinese, or at least spoke a Chinese dialect, wore Chinese clothing woven from Chinese fabrics, ate Chinese food, and abided by Chinese decorum.

True, but judging by how there's no evidence that the Indus Valley Civilization maintained an active army, I'd say that at least the conquest of the region encompassing modern Pakistan and Northwest India is likely.

An army, I suppose, is a reaction against the institution of a foreign army that threatens it. If the Indus Valley Civilization, which wasn't a united country anyway, didn't think that the migrating Aryas, whose infighting was evident on the Vedas, could pose a threat to them, naturally they won't waste their resources on the army anyway; they evidently had other places where they devoted their resources, and left us with a stunning spectacle of urban civilization.