quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: all scholars AGREE on what western civilization refers to Doug. You are the one that is ducking and dodging because you lack the basic history education to form a coherent position.
That said, lets deal with what your points. Other cultures in Europe ARE dealt with. There are extensive histories avilable on all of them. The reason the Greco-Roman area is looked at more is because it is the one that provided the foundation for the development of all of Europe. The role of the Roman Catholic church in the middle ages is key.
So it is European history/civilization and it starts in the East (and South) like I said. "Western" has nothing to do with it. And no all scholars do not have the same view of what Western civilization means either. Point blank any term "civilization" refers to a group of people sharing common traits, culture, customs and political organization. EUROPE did not have a common culture, identity, traits and custom until maybe 500 years ago, long after Greece and Rome. Therefore, they cannot be considered all Greek or Roman since 700 BC. Greek and Roman culture is not COMMON to all of Europe it is FOREIGN to most of Europe. Ancient Germans were not like the Greeks and Romans. Ancient Britons were not like the Greeks and Romans. Ancient Scandinavians were not like the Greeks and Romans. Even today Greek culture and cities are UNLIKE most in Europe, because Greece has ALWAYS been oriented to the EAST than the West. The point being that the term WESTERN has no value in describing the development, origin or history of European civilizations and cultures. Focusing on Greece and Rome is simply an attempt by NON Greeks and NON Romans to pretend that their cultures and societies were ALWAYS civilized WHEN THEY WERE NOT.
Posts: 8901 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by markellion: These are the only conclusions that can be made from your definition American Patriot. By your definition of Western Civilization you gave us it consisted entirely of Greece and Rome. Accepting your very description we might as will call it Greco-Roman Civilization. Other Europeans had no part in it they were forced. Then after Greco-Roman Civilization it became the dark ages. Roman Catholic church=Dark Ages.
Some glorious legacy
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: The reason the Greco-Roman area is looked at more is because it is the one that provided the foundation for the development of all of Europe. The role of the Roman Catholic church in the middle ages is key.
Actually the "Dark Ages" only applies to WESTERN EUROPE, because this area DID NOT have any civilization of its own to begin with. Therefore, outside of Roman influence THEY WERE NOT CIVILIZED. The arrogance of Europeans tries to portray ALL THE WORLD as being in a "Dark Age" because WESTERN Europe hadn't become civilized yet. That is STUPID. In fact, the Eastern Roman Empire and Greece never had a Dark Age. Persia and Asia weren't in a Dark Age, Africa wasn't in a dark Age and the Americas were not in a Dark Age either. In fact, the later parts of the Byzantine Empire came to be dominated by Greeks and called the Macedonian Byzantine Empire and the official language was Greek. They even had a mini renaissance of Greek culture in the 10th century, called the Macedonian Renaissance. And it was during this time that the major SPLIT occurred between the Eastern and Western Catholic Church. Showing clearly that East and West were not a common unified entity in Europe by any stretch of the imagination. That is the point of why these terms and their usage must be put in proper context, as Europeans sometimes like to put their history at the center of the world with WESTERN Europeans being the most important, when they weren't until 500 years ago. Prior to that all the major action of civilization was to the East and South and generally OUTSIDE of Europe. And Greece has NEVER really been associated with "The West" as in Western Europe, until "Western" academics tried to "claim" Greece in order to down play their "barbarian" Western European roots.
posted
Doug, Western refers to Europe, as opposed to Asia (eastern). Are you trying to say that eastern Europe was not involved in the Dark Ages? Pray tell, how did life in Poland or Hungary differ from France or germany during this period??? Major action of civilization" ??? Exactly what does that mean? Civilizations are specific, they are not an action. You can define a civilization within a specific set of characteristics.
Greek and Roman culture does not have to apply to all of europe from the very beginning. Greek and Roman culture SPREAD throughout Europe in a process that began around 500 BC. You seem to want to make an issue out of the fact that Europe did not have a common culture from day one. Nobody argues with that. Obviously they did not have a common culture in 10,000 BC.
The point is, and they basic texts lay this out for you, is that what we know as western civilization started in Greece and Rome and spread thoughout Europe. It did so starting around 500 BC on a continous basis and was completed in most of Europe by 500 AD. The last componet of culture added was the religious conversion that was completed in the early middle ages.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
But your very definition of Western Civilization is that it consisted of Greece and Rome, so it is Greco-Roman Civilization right? And then later it was Christindam, as Lamin pointed out. So instead of saying Western Civlization you should say 1. Greco-Roman and then later 2. Christindam. and then finally 3 Western Civliization in modern times
I am going from your definition American Patriot
Posts: 2642 | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Going from his own definition there is no great European western Civilization legacy. If he is trying to claim such a legacy, a close look at his own definition debunks it
Posts: 2642 | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
what you have Markellion is a continous evolution with Greece and rome as the foundation. No society becomes frozen in time.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
"And Greece has NEVER really been associated with "The West" as in Western Europe, until "Western" academics tried to "claim" Greece in order to down play their "barbarian" Western European roots."
Marseille, the oldest city of France, was founded in 600 BC by Greeks from Phocaea (as mentioned by Thucydides Bk1,13) as a trading port under the name Μασσαλία (Massalia; see also List of traditional Greek place names).
Massalia was one of the first Greek ports in Western Europe, growing to a population of over 1000. It was the first settlement given city status in France. Facing an opposing alliance of the Etruscans, Carthage and the Celts, the Greek colony allied itself with the expanding Roman Republic for protection.
There were a number of Greek colonies and settlements in Spain, France, Monaco and Portugal. The Greeks did not dominate these regions as they did in Magna Gracia or in the Cyrenaica in Libya for example, they did however have a lasting influence.
One of the first Greeks to make it to the edge of the Mediterranean was a powerful and heroic man, the great Hercules who built the Pillars of Hercules on either side of the Gibraltar straits to signify the supposed geographical limit of the known world.
Herodotus tells us that another Greek, Captain Kolaios of Samos and his crew mistakenly sailed past the Pillars of Hercules and landed in the region of Tartessos in southern Spain (near Portugal) in the 7th century BC. The Greeks exchanged goods and whilst working on their tans made a strong friendship with the king. Kolaios and his crew returned to Samos with Iberian (Spanish) silver and minerals and stories of potential new trading lands.
Within decades the Greeks had established a strong trading presence in Iberia and supplemented these activities by establishing settlements. Some scholars debate the size and the existence of a number of the settlements. It is certain that a town existed in the region approaching modern Gibraltar and within the boundaries of Tartessos. The town was called Mainake however not much is known about its history. Another town located in southern Iberia but facing the east was Hemerskopeion. These places ensured that Greek merchants could facilitate their trade with Iberians and had a base that was not controlled by their great rivals the Phoenicians. Many archeological sites in southern Spain have unearthed Greek pottery from the 700’s BC onwards.
Phocaea – a name I can’t pronounce and is a place I have never been to. This was a great city on the coast of Asia Minor towards the Hellespont. It was captured by the Persians in 545BC, however its maritime activities in the 200 years prior to this date led to the establishment of some of the greatest cities in the world.
During the great Greek colonial epoch of antiquity the Phocaeans established the colonies of Emporion and Rhode in northern Spain (above Barcelona). The latter colony was established before the ancient Olympic Games and the former was to become an important centre of commerce. The presence of Greeks in the southern regions of Spain and Portugal was to last until the seventh century AD when Byzantine control was overthrown.
The Phocaeans established the colony of Massalia about 600BC. A local story tells us that Protis from Phocaea was invited to a “coming out” event by a local king for his daughter. Protis was your typical Adonis (or perhaps a Hercules) looking Greek so the girl fell in love with Protis and they were given as dowry the land in what would become Massalia.
Massalia which today is known as Marseille (France) was to develop as a leading city in the Mediterranean and was the first Greek colony in the west to reach a population of over 1000. It was a city that remained independent until 49 BC when it was captured by Julius Caesar after a 6 month siege. The locals resisted as best as they could using all their Herculean reserves in the process. The City was one of the last of the Greek colonies in the far west to retain its Greek character and language, holding on at least until the arrival of the Visigoths in fifth century AD and into the next.
Massalia founded a number of other colonies in the region including Agathe, Olbia, Antipolis and Nicaea. Nicaea was founded by the Massalians in 350BC after a victory over a neighbouring kingdom. The City was named after the Greek Goddess of Victory, Nike and is not to be confused with any sponsorship deals involving Tiger Woods. I have been to both Nice and Marseilles and it is amazing that from such humble, Greek origins they are today large and vibrant French cities.
Another great City that owes its development to the Greeks is that of Monaco. Founded as Monoikos by the Massalians in the sixth century BC it is also known as the Port of Hercules after he stopped off here during his travels. And like Hercules I too stopped here many years ago for a quick drink.
There are other areas of France where the Greeks had small trading settlements or like Alalia in Corsica had established a significant town. Speaking of Corsica, its time to point out that the Byzantine Empire – the medieval Greek empire, held the island of Corsica and all of the Mediterranean islands for a significant period during the sixth and seventh centuries AD (not BC). The Byzantine rule during this epoch also extended to southern Spain and northern Africa. This ensured that towns that were formerly Greek colonies and many of the people living in those locations continued to speak Greek or identify with that culture. However, unlike Byzantine control of Magna Gracia or the Cyrenaica in Libya it would be difficult to say that the Greek speakers were overwhelming dominant in those areas.
The Greeks were responsible not only for establishing so many prominent colonies and trade but for introducing olive and wine to France. It was the Greeks who introduced these products to France and ensured that wine was made in that region for years to come. Think about it, what would the world be like if French wine was not produced the way we know it?
So the moral of my story is, next time you think you have come across an ancient Greek theatre, please make sure it is. Otherwise you might just find a series of Greek colonies and some anecdotes about Hercules.
Posts: 3773 | From: unfinished thought | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
unfinished, most of these guys have no clue. Many want to make remarks but simply will not read.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by unfinished thought.: "And Greece has NEVER really been associated with "The West" as in Western Europe, until "Western" academics tried to "claim" Greece in order to down play their "barbarian" Western European roots."
Marseille, the oldest city of France, was founded in 600 BC by Greeks from Phocaea (as mentioned by Thucydides Bk1,13) as a trading port under the name Μασσαλία (Massalia; see also List of traditional Greek place names).
Massalia was one of the first Greek ports in Western Europe, growing to a population of over 1000. It was the first settlement given city status in France. Facing an opposing alliance of the Etruscans, Carthage and the Celts, the Greek colony allied itself with the expanding Roman Republic for protection.
There were a number of Greek colonies and settlements in Spain, France, Monaco and Portugal. The Greeks did not dominate these regions as they did in Magna Gracia or in the Cyrenaica in Libya for example, they did however have a lasting influence.
One of the first Greeks to make it to the edge of the Mediterranean was a powerful and heroic man, the great Hercules who built the Pillars of Hercules on either side of the Gibraltar straits to signify the supposed geographical limit of the known world.
Herodotus tells us that another Greek, Captain Kolaios of Samos and his crew mistakenly sailed past the Pillars of Hercules and landed in the region of Tartessos in southern Spain (near Portugal) in the 7th century BC. The Greeks exchanged goods and whilst working on their tans made a strong friendship with the king. Kolaios and his crew returned to Samos with Iberian (Spanish) silver and minerals and stories of potential new trading lands.
Within decades the Greeks had established a strong trading presence in Iberia and supplemented these activities by establishing settlements. Some scholars debate the size and the existence of a number of the settlements. It is certain that a town existed in the region approaching modern Gibraltar and within the boundaries of Tartessos. The town was called Mainake however not much is known about its history. Another town located in southern Iberia but facing the east was Hemerskopeion. These places ensured that Greek merchants could facilitate their trade with Iberians and had a base that was not controlled by their great rivals the Phoenicians. Many archeological sites in southern Spain have unearthed Greek pottery from the 700’s BC onwards.
Phocaea – a name I can’t pronounce and is a place I have never been to. This was a great city on the coast of Asia Minor towards the Hellespont. It was captured by the Persians in 545BC, however its maritime activities in the 200 years prior to this date led to the establishment of some of the greatest cities in the world.
During the great Greek colonial epoch of antiquity the Phocaeans established the colonies of Emporion and Rhode in northern Spain (above Barcelona). The latter colony was established before the ancient Olympic Games and the former was to become an important centre of commerce. The presence of Greeks in the southern regions of Spain and Portugal was to last until the seventh century AD when Byzantine control was overthrown.
The Phocaeans established the colony of Massalia about 600BC. A local story tells us that Protis from Phocaea was invited to a “coming out” event by a local king for his daughter. Protis was your typical Adonis (or perhaps a Hercules) looking Greek so the girl fell in love with Protis and they were given as dowry the land in what would become Massalia.
Massalia which today is known as Marseille (France) was to develop as a leading city in the Mediterranean and was the first Greek colony in the west to reach a population of over 1000. It was a city that remained independent until 49 BC when it was captured by Julius Caesar after a 6 month siege. The locals resisted as best as they could using all their Herculean reserves in the process. The City was one of the last of the Greek colonies in the far west to retain its Greek character and language, holding on at least until the arrival of the Visigoths in fifth century AD and into the next.
Massalia founded a number of other colonies in the region including Agathe, Olbia, Antipolis and Nicaea. Nicaea was founded by the Massalians in 350BC after a victory over a neighbouring kingdom. The City was named after the Greek Goddess of Victory, Nike and is not to be confused with any sponsorship deals involving Tiger Woods. I have been to both Nice and Marseilles and it is amazing that from such humble, Greek origins they are today large and vibrant French cities.
Another great City that owes its development to the Greeks is that of Monaco. Founded as Monoikos by the Massalians in the sixth century BC it is also known as the Port of Hercules after he stopped off here during his travels. And like Hercules I too stopped here many years ago for a quick drink.
There are other areas of France where the Greeks had small trading settlements or like Alalia in Corsica had established a significant town. Speaking of Corsica, its time to point out that the Byzantine Empire – the medieval Greek empire, held the island of Corsica and all of the Mediterranean islands for a significant period during the sixth and seventh centuries AD (not BC). The Byzantine rule during this epoch also extended to southern Spain and northern Africa. This ensured that towns that were formerly Greek colonies and many of the people living in those locations continued to speak Greek or identify with that culture. However, unlike Byzantine control of Magna Gracia or the Cyrenaica in Libya it would be difficult to say that the Greek speakers were overwhelming dominant in those areas.
The Greeks were responsible not only for establishing so many prominent colonies and trade but for introducing olive and wine to France. It was the Greeks who introduced these products to France and ensured that wine was made in that region for years to come. Think about it, what would the world be like if French wine was not produced the way we know it?
So the moral of my story is, next time you think you have come across an ancient Greek theatre, please make sure it is. Otherwise you might just find a series of Greek colonies and some anecdotes about Hercules.
And you are making my point more clear. Greek culture and civilization was Greek culture and civilization. It was European, but it was NOT the culture of all of Europe. Of course Greek thought influenced Roman thought and both influenced the later development of the rest of Europe. The point is that ALL OF EUROPE was not like Greece and Rome in 500 B.C. And Europe WAS NOT unified under a COMMON CULTURE AND IDENTITY as "WESTERN" for any time prior to 500 years ago. It is a word that only came about in RECENT times to describe the cultures and activities of WESTERN Europeans who were INSPIRED by Greece and Rome but were considered as BARBARIANS and ENEMIES of the actual Greeks and Romans. Britons were not practicing "Western" thought during the Middle Ages. ALL of this goes back to the Renaissance when Europe finally began to practice a culture based upon ancient Greek and Roman works.
Put it this way, if I started the history of Africa with ancient Egypt, NOBODY would agree. Why? Because Africa is a large continent and all people of Africa were not ancient Egyptians.
Similarly, yes Greece and Rome were EUROPEAN civilizations, but all of Europe is not Greece and Rome.
People need to understand that when Europeans claim something called "western" they are only focusing EXCLUSIVELY on Greece and Rome and not focusing on the fact that MOST of Europe was NOT like those two civilizations for the period between 100 BC and 1200AD. Actually the BIGGEST force for change in Europe during that time period was the migration of Germanic tribes carrying traces of Eastern steppe culture and traditions which laid the foundation for the Fall of Rome to begin with. THESE PEOPLE WERE NOT like the Romans. From these Germanic tribes come the Saxons who founded Britain based on knowledge and administrative practices gained from the MUSLIMS in Sicily. Christianity was NOT COMMON in Europe for this time. People DID NOT identify with Greece or Rome in Britain, Germany, Scandinavia and so forth.
This is the basis of MOST European culture and identity during the time between 200AD and 1200AD. They did not glorify Greece and Rome. Rome was their ENEMY.
So now the former BARBARIANS and ENEMIES of Rome want to claim that Rome is their heritage. That is hilarious.
That is why "Western" civilization has no real meaning at all. European civilization is a much better term because it does not try and isolate focus on Greece and Rome while ignoring the peoples and cultures identified as barbarians and the enemies of Rome, who were the common people of MOST of Europe.
In fact the Middle Ages are also called the dark ages PRECISELY because of the wars between the Germanic tribes, where the Germanic tribes were NOT known for being civilized and were NOT "Western" and thus civilized. In fact the Church only gained a strong toehold among the rulers of Europe due to the Moors, where Christianity financed and backed various rulers (Charlemagne) in their wars and claim to the throne. This was followed by the Crusades, which further helped the Church gain more rulers and armies into the fold. Without the MUSLIMS in Europe and the East the Church would have had a hard time developing as it did. And the Church was nowhere near being the basis of education in Europe. That is something that they also learned from the Muslims, as Islam was the leading institution of Learning in the Mediterranean at that time.
Posts: 8901 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Therefore, outside of Roman influence THEY WERE NOT CIVILIZED."
Some European tribes arrived in Europe much later, so it is logical they were less civilized. The Greeks and the Romans had already established themselves in Europe.
Also you have to take into account other factors such as climate and geography. The Greek lived in a Mediterrain climate. Winters were mild and wet, and they were able to grow grapes and olives. Summers were warm and dry. Grapes and olives were one of the few plants that could survive draoughts. Northern European cultures were required to overcome harsh climate. Much of northern Europe was an ice sheet and the rest of Europe extremely cold.
Posts: 3773 | From: unfinished thought | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doug, give it up. It became the culture of all Europe. That is the point we have been trying to drill into your thick head. Greece and Rome, two European cultural systems spread their culture to other Europeans. It could have happened anywhere in Europe but it happened in Greece and rome. Glencoe Doug....read.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by unfinished thought.: "Therefore, outside of Roman influence THEY WERE NOT CIVILIZED."
Some European tribes arrived in Europe much later, so it is logical they were less civilized. The Greeks and the Romans had already established themselves in Europe.
Also you have to take into account other factors such as climate and geography. The Greek lived in a Mediterrain climate. Winters were mild and wet, and they were able to grow grapes and olives. Summers were warm and dry. Grapes and olives were one of the few plants that could survive draoughts. Northern European cultures were required to overcome harsh climate. Much of northern Europe was an ice sheet and the rest of Europe extremely cold.
But you aren't making a point. Rome COLONIZED Europe and when Rome fell MOST of Europe reverted to their pre roman ways. Being colonized by Rome does not make them the SAME as the Romans or sharing Romes ancient heritage. After the Romans left many were HAPPY to see them go. Rome was an EMPIRE it was not a place were Gemanics and barbaric people were considered human. The Gauls were perennial ENEMIES of Rome going back to 100BC. They were not "Western" as "Western" has no meaning here. They did not share a common worldview culture or identity. They did not glorify Greece and Rome.
After the Germanic invasions many of the ruling families that arose were of GERMANIC stock across Europe, including Britain.
quote: The House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha was formerly the Royal House of several European monarchies, and branches currently reign in Belgium through the descendants of Leopold I, and in the United Kingdom through the descendants of Prince Albert. Due to anti-German sentiment in the United Kingdom during World War I, George V changed the name from Saxe-Coburg and Gotha to Windsor in 1917. The House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha is a line of the Saxon House of Wettin.
This Germanic heritage is as important as any in the definition of modern Europe but Germanic history is NOT ROMAN and GREEK history.
The TRUE history of Great Britain
quote: The Saxons (Latin: Saxones) were a confederation of Old Germanic tribes. Their modern-day descendants in Lower Saxony and Westphalia and other German states are considered ethnic Germans (the State of Sachsen is not inhabited by ethnic Saxons; the state of Sachsen-Anhalt only in its northwestern parts); those in the eastern Netherlands are considered to be ethnic Dutch; those in north eastern Belgium are considered to be ethnic Flemish; those in northern France are considered to be ethnic French; and those in Southern England ethnic English (see Anglo-Saxons). Their earliest known area of settlement is Northern Albingia, an area approximately that of modern Holstein.
Saxons participated in the Germanic settlement of Britain during and after the 5th century. It is unknown how many migrated from the continent to Britain though estimates for the total number of Germanic settlers vary between 10,000 and 200,000.[1] Since the 18th century, many continental Saxons have settled other parts of the world, especially in North America, Australia, South Africa, and in areas of the former Soviet Union, where some communities still maintain parts of their cultural and linguistic heritage, often under the umbrella categories "German", "Flemish", and "Dutch".
Because of international Hanseatic trading routes and contingent migration during the Middle Ages, Saxons mixed with and had strong influences upon the languages and cultures of the Scandinavian and Baltic peoples, and also upon the Polabian Slavs and Pomeranian West Slavic peoples.
First mentioned by the Ancient Greek geographer Ptolemy, the pre-Christian settlement of the Saxon people originally covered an area a little more to the northwest, with parts of the southern Jutland Peninsula, Old Saxony and small sections of the eastern Low Countries (Belgium and the Netherlands). During the 5th century AD, the Saxons were part of the people invading the Romano-British province of Britannia. One of the other tribes was the Germanic Angles, whose name, taken together with that of the Saxons led to the formation of the modern term, Anglo-Saxons.
And these Germanic tribes came from THE EAST, so what does "Western" have to do with it.
And any idiot who doesn't see the importance of the Germanic people to modern Western European history needs to have their head examined.
Charlemagne was a Germanic king. Most of Western Europe is about the spread of Germanic peoples and cultures over the last 1500 years, not the spread of "Western" thought.
Posts: 8901 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doug, I gave you 40 books to read on Roman Britain. If you bothered to read those books you would see that when Rome fell the various segments of the empire did not revert to pre empire conditions.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: Doug, I gave you 40 books to read on Roman Britain. If you bothered to read those books you would see that when Rome fell the various segments of the empire did not revert to pre empire conditions.
So? What does that have to do with the fact that Britain came to be dominated by Germanic peoples not ROMANS?
Posts: 8901 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: Doug, I gave you 40 books to read on Roman Britain. If you bothered to read those books you would see that when Rome fell the various segments of the empire did not revert to pre empire conditions.
Western Europe fell and reverted in many cases, especially due to the influx of Germanic tribes and the wars between various factions.
That is why there is a thing called the Dark Ages Mr. Patriot. And this was specifically in the Western Part of Europe where people REVERTED or did not maintain the Roman lifestyle.
So why don't you READ those books?
And it was during this time that Britain came to be dominated by Germanic peoples.
Care to show how any of these books contradict this?
Posts: 8901 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again you fail to understand the process because you refuse to read. The Angles, Saxons and Jutes were not pre Roman barbarians. They also were drawn into the emerging post Roman European culture. You might be aware that very soon after arriving in Britain they became Roman Catholics. That process is detailed very well in 'The Barbarian Conversion.' The Celtic Irish converted even sooner. Earlier I pointed out that the Roman church stepped in and filled in the void left by the fall of the Empire. keep in mind also the Greeks were Indo Europeans and came out of the same groups who populated all of Europe.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: Again you fail to understand the process because you refuse to read. The Angles, Saxons and Jutes were not pre Roman barbarians. They also were drawn into the emerging post Roman European culture. You might be aware that very soon after arriving in Britain they became Roman Catholics. That process is detailed very well in 'The Barbarian Conversion.' The Celtic Irish converted even sooner. Earlier I pointed out that the Roman church stepped in and filled in the void left by the fall of the Empire. keep in mind also the Greeks were Indo Europeans and came out of the same groups who populated all of Europe.
That is what I just said. It was called the Dark Ages Mr Patriot.
You keep trying to sweep this under the rug because you want to pretend that somehow Western Europe was always as civilized as Greece and Rome, when they were not. After Rome left Western Europe, much of the Western part of Europe fell into the Dark Ages and it is precisely during this time that the Christian Church made inroads. And at this time the Christian Church was not giving out education to the masses. They were in the process of using their wealth and power to back various kings and chiefs in the wars of the time in order to gain supporters as "knights" of the Holy Roman Empire. The only culture that was giving out education to the masses at this time was Islam.
On the other hand in Eastern Europe there was no "Dark Ages", because Greece and Rome never "lost" their history or culture. The reason for the Dark Ages in the West is because what civilization they had WAS NOT INDIGENOUS to Western Europe. And during this time most of Western Europe was NOT Christian. It was due to forced conversions that people became Christian and this is another reason why this period is called the Dark Ages.
You are simply rewording all of the above in order to support a nonsesnse view of "Western" being something significant in terms of civilization. When it wasn't. "Western" did not take on any significance until 300 years ago as Britain and other European nations became world powers. Prior to that Europe was nothing but a blip on the stage of world civilization.
Also, the "Christian" Anglo Saxons who dominated Europe and gave them their "civilization" were heavily influenced by Muslim Sicily. Yes they were knights of the Christian church, but much of what they introduced into Britain was from a background of interaction with the Muslims in Sicily. It is from this and the fact that under the Normans Muslims were sought out in Sicily and Islam was allowed to continue its presence. from there they introduced Arabic (indian) Numerals, the common law system based on Islamic Jurisprudence and fiscal organization to Britain as well as architectural influences, such as stone castles and keeps.
Like I said, the Islamic threat to Europe is what helped galvanize the Christians into a force in Western Europe. Without the Muslims, not only may there not have been a Renaissance, but there may not have been a "high middle ages" or a Crusades. Which means Christianity would not be where it is today.
Yes the Normans were Germanic people who migrated from the North like the Franks, Gauls and Visigoths and NONE of them introduced civilization to Europe, they only adopted and integrated the remnants of the civilizations they found. The main claim to fame for these Germanic people was their skill at war which is legendary in Europe.
Like you yourself said, the Greeks were heavily influenced by populations from the EAST, which means that "Western" has no meaning in terms of Greek civilization.
Posts: 8901 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And to reinforce the fact that Medieval culture was not based on Roman OR Greek culture, note that the earliest examples of the lion in European heraldry came from the MUSLIMS and was adopted into European custom.
Note the lion motif which is very similar to that of King Roger and distinctively like the Lions of Sumer, Babylon and Persia before it. Note also the Moorish arch within which he stands, with colorful painting which was common in Moorish North Africa, Spain and elsewhere.
But even beyond the Persian influence, soldiers have been attiring themselves with colorful patterns for war since time immemorial. Images from Egypt, Babylon, Persia, Asia and elsewhere attest to this.
Not to mention that the idea of knights also traces back to Persia as well, along with castles, fortresses and other styes of military/ceremonial structures.
The Sassanian Dynasty lasted until the 7th century AD, when it was defeated by the armies of Islam. Many elements of Persian culture became part of the Islamic tradition as well as the traditions of Dynasties in Syria, especially the Umayyads.
Posts: 8901 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Note the similarity to the Persian reliefs, especially God bestowing kingship.
quote: Henry the Lion (German: Heinrich der Löwe; 1129 – 6 August 1195) was a member of the Guelph dynasty and Duke of Saxony, as Henry III, from 1142, and Duke of Bavaria, as Henry XII, from 1156, which duchies he held until 1180.
He was one of the most powerful German princes of his time, until the rival Hohenstaufen dynasty succeeded in isolating him and eventually deprived him of his duchies of Bavaria and Saxony during the reign of his cousin Frederick I and of Frederick's son and successor Henry VI.
Note that the family of William the Conqueror was strongly tied to the throne at <b>NORMAN</b>dy in France as well as the Normans in Sicily.
quote: The first reference to Norman heraldry was in 1128, when Henry I of England knighted his son-in-law Geoffrey and granted him a badge of gold lions (or leopards) on a blue background. (A gold lion may already have been Henry's own badge.) Henry II used two gold lions and two lions on a red background are still part of the arms of Normandy. Henry's son, Richard I, added a third lion to distinguish the arms of England.
And to reinforce the point, the Coronation mantle with lion motifs has been used to Coronate Kings of the Holy Roman Empire since the 13th century:
quote: Palermo
Royal workshop, 1133/34
Figured silk (kermes-dyed), gold and silk embroidery, pearls, gold with cloisonn� enamel, precious stones
H 146 cm, W 345 cm
The precious mantle embroidered with gold, pearls and cloisonn�-enameled plaques was part of the coronation set of robes used at the coronations of the kings and emperors of the Holy Roman Empire.
These precious robes were made by Arab artisans for the Norman kings on Sicily in the 12th and 13th centuries and passed to the German house of Hohenstaufen. This unique coronation mantle of heavy red silk is richly embroidered with gold stitching and tens of thousands of pearls. It is semicircular and was locked with a clasp decorated with precious stones and enamel. The Arabic inscription on the lower hem of the mantle tells us the date of the production at the royal workshop in Palermo in 528 (according to Islamic chronology) corresponding to the Christian year 1133/34. Thus this robe was made for Roger II of Sicily (1095-1154). The oriental motifs are borrowed from Arabic art: two symmetrically addorsed (back-to-back) lions triumph over a camel; between them like a stylized palm tree is the tree of life. The lions symbolize the ruler who defeats his foes.
Because of the preciousness of the mantle, the kings and emperors of the Holy Roman Empire, ignoring the "foreign� motifs, had used it as a coronation mantle since the 13th century. In the 14th century it was believed that the mantle had belonged to Charlemagne, the canonized emperor and renewer of the Roman Empire, who had supposedly won it from the Moors.
posted
Charlemagne was the penultimate symbol of the unification of Western Europe under Germanic Knights of the Holy Roman Empire:
quote: Charlemagne Latin: Carolus Magnus or Karolus Magnus, meaning Charles the Great) (2 April 742 – 28 January 814) was King of the Franks from 768 to his death. He expanded the Frankish kingdoms into a Frankish Empire that incorporated much of Western and Central Europe. During his reign, he conquered Italy and was crowned Imperator Augustus by Pope Leo III on 25 December 800 as a rival of the Byzantine Emperor in Constantinople. His rule is also associated with the Carolingian Renaissance, a revival of art, religion, and culture through the medium of the Catholic Church. Through his foreign conquests and internal reforms, Charlemagne helped define both Western Europe and the Middle Ages. He is numbered as Charles I in the regnal lists of France, Germany, and the Holy Roman Empire.
The son of King Pippin the Short and Bertrada of Laon, he succeeded his father and co-ruled with his brother Carloman I. The latter got on badly with Charlemagne, but war was prevented by the sudden death of Carloman in 771. Charlemagne continued the policy of his father towards the papacy and became its protector, removing the Lombards from power in Italy, and waging war on the Saracens, who menaced his realm from Spain. It was during one of these campaigns that Charlemagne experienced the worst defeat of his life, at the Battle of Roncesvalles (778) memorialised in the Song of Roland. He also campaigned against the peoples to his east, especially the Saxons, and after a protracted war subjected them to his rule. By forcibly converting them to Christianity, he integrated them into his realm and thus paved the way for the later Ottonian dynasty.
Today he is regarded not only as the founding father of both French and German monarchies, but also as the father of Europe: his empire united most of Western Europe for the first time since the Romans, and the Carolingian renaissance encouraged the formation of a common European identity.[1]
A lot of Charlemagne's glory came as a results of the actions of Charles Martel, who defeated the Moors. And with that came the rise of the Orders of Germanic Knights of the Holy (WESTERN) Roman Empire. Keep in mind that this was a politico-religious alliance to create a Christian power in Western Europe as a force AGAINST the Byzantine Christian ROMAN Empire of the EAST in Constantinople.
quote: At the beginning of Charles Martel's career, he had many internal opponents and felt the need to appoint his own kingly claimant, Clotaire IV. By his end, however, the dynamics of rulership in Francia had changed, no hallowed Meroving was needed, neither for defence nor legitimacy: Charles divided his realm between his sons without opposition (though he ignored his young son Bernard). In between, he strengthened the Frankish state by consistently defeating, through superior generalship, the host of hostile foreign nations which beset it on all sides, including the heathen Saxons, which his grandson Charlemagne would fully subdue, and Moors, which he halted on a path of continental domination.
Though he never cared about titles, his son Pippin did, and finally asked the Pope "who should be King, he who has the title, or he who has the power?" The Pope, highly dependent on Frankish armies for his independence from Lombard and Byzantine power (the Byzantine Emperor still considered himself to be the only legitimate "Roman Emperor", and thus, ruler of all of the provinces of the ancient empire, whether recognised or not), declared for "he who had the power" and immediately crowned Pippin.
Decades later, in 800, Pippin's son Charlemagne was crowned emperor by the Pope, further extending the principle by delegitimising the nominal authority of the Byzantine Emperor in the Italian peninsula (which had, by then, shrunk to encompass little more than Apulia and Calabria at best) and ancient Roman Gaul, including the Iberian outposts Charlemagne had established in the Marca Hispanica across the Pyrenees, what today forms Catalonia. In short, though the Byzantine Emperor claimed authority over all the old Roman Empire, as the legitimate "Roman" Emperor, it was simply not reality. The bulk of the Western Roman Empire had come under Carolingian rule, the Byzantine Emperor having had almost no authority in the West since the sixth century, though Charlemagne, a consummate politician, preferred to avoid an open breach with Constantinople. An institution unique in history was being born: the Holy Roman Empire. Though the sardonic Voltaire ridiculed its nomenclature, saying that the Holy Roman Empire was "neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire," it constituted an enormous political power for a time, especially under the Saxon and Salian dynasties and, to a lesser, extent, the Hohenstaufen. It lasted until 1806, by then it was a nonentity. Though his grandson became its first emperor, the "empire" such as it was, was largely born during the reign of Charles Martel.
quote: Sergi argued that the Mediterraneans were more creative and imaginative than other peoples, which explained their ancient cultural and intellectual achievements, but that they were by nature volatile and unstable. In his book The Decline of the Latin Nations he argued that Northern Europeans had developed stoicism, tenacity and self-discipline due to the cold climate, and so were better adapted to succeed in modern civic cultures and economies.[3]
[edit] Anti-Nordicism These theories were developed in opposition to Nordicism, the claim that the Nordic race was of pure Aryan stock and naturally superior to other Europeans. [/QB]
There is no such thing as a "Mediterraneanist". There is only Nordicism and Afrocentrism.
Mediterranean people seek only their own history, not others.
You will find NO pseudo historical movements talking about Mediterranean vikings or mongols like you see Northern Europeans often doing with the ancient Greeks or mongols and others. The same thing goes for pseudo scholarship from American Afrocentrics.
Posts: 143 | From: The United States Of America (sadly) | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:So it is European history/civilization and it starts in the East (and South) like I said. "Western" has nothing to do with it. And no all scholars do not have the same view of what Western civilization means either. Point blank any term "civilization" refers to a group of people sharing common traits, culture, customs and political organization. EUROPE did not have a common culture, identity, traits and custom until maybe 500 years ago, long after Greece and Rome. Therefore, they cannot be considered all Greek or Roman since 700 BC. Greek and Roman culture is not COMMON to all of Europe it is FOREIGN to most of Europe. Ancient Germans were not like the Greeks and Romans. Ancient Britons were not like the Greeks and Romans. Ancient Scandinavians were not like the Greeks and Romans. Even today Greek culture and cities are UNLIKE most in Europe, because Greece has ALWAYS been oriented to the EAST than the West. The point being that the term WESTERN has no value in describing the development, origin or history of European civilizations and cultures. Focusing on Greece and Rome is simply an attempt by NON Greeks and NON Romans to pretend that their cultures and societies were ALWAYS civilized WHEN THEY WERE NOT. [/QB]
This is an interesting topic and I'll give you my 2 cents as a Greek American.
It is true, the Greeks have always had a connection with the Orient. Although the ancient Greeks rejected the Orient as well, but they certainly had more in common with a people say for instance the Phoenicians whom they learned from...than they did with any people in Northern/Western Europe at the time.
Greek folk music is much different than that of other Europeans (minus Southern Italians and Balkan people)...for instance the lovely music of the Celts (which I certainly enjoy) is completely different. Greek folk music has influences from the orient. It sounds different of course and original, but it still has influences. It is simply Greek, that is all I can say.
Even our religion is different. Although the Orthodox church is still Christian..and therefore "Western". Our hymns and so forth are very different than the Protestant types. I see our closest cousins being Southern/Central Italians, as we have much in common with them Culturally and with the Catholic church.
I think Western Europeans have created an imaginary ancient Greece in their minds. For instance Jakob Fallmerayer when coming into contact with the Greeks of the 19th century...considered those Greeks to be different than the ancient Greeks. He claimed that modern Greeks were "orientalized", and considered them...as well as Slavs and Albanians of the Balkans to be part of "The East". And that's why he claimed that Modern Greeks were so much different than the Ancient Greeks who were the optimome (at-least in his mind) of "the West". And modern Greeks were not "pure".
Anyways I don't want to take away anything from the Ancient Greeks themselves. Indeed, "Western Civilization" does start in Greece. It is the birthplace of Democracy, "Western" philosophy, the Olympic Games, Western literature and historiography, political science, major scientific and mathematical principles, and Western drama, including both tragedy and comedy There is a first for everything and that's where they originated from. But with that being said, we should not look past the influences and commonaities Greeks had/have with the Orient..particularly the Levant and Persia.
There is no one big homogeneous Western Culture. The Greek/Italian lifestyle and culture for instance, is very different from Germans or Scandinavians. Even the French are significantly different in culture than the Germanic peoples.
The Slavs as well, from Eastern Europe have a very different culture than other Europeans. Throughout most of history Slavs have never even been considered part of "The West".
Posts: 143 | From: The United States Of America (sadly) | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: [QB] No you don't AP...do you not accept,a concept called North African Caucasian? I know you do you said often enough....Well here is where you ultimately got the concept from.
Following this linguistic argument, in the 1850s Arthur de Gobineau supposed that "Aryan" corresponded to the suggested prehistoric Indo-European culture (1853-1855, Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races). Further, de Gobineau believed that there were three basic races – white, yellow and black – and that everything else was caused by race miscegenation, which de Gobineau argued was the cause of chaos. The "master race", according to de Gobineau, were the Northern European "Aryans", who had remained "racially pure". Southern Europeans (to include Spaniards and Southern Frenchmen), Eastern Europeans, North Africans, Middle Easterners, Iranians, Central Asians, Indians, he all considered racially mixed, degenerated through the miscegenation, and thus less than ideal. The earliest epigraphically-attested reference to the word arya occurs in the 6th century BCE Behistun inscription, which describes itself to have been composed "in arya [language or script]" (¶ 70). As is also the case for all other Old Iranian language usage, the arya of the inscription does not signify anything but "Iranian".[8]
LOL talk about Insanity, I suppose the creator created an original 3 races, The White Nordic type, Black "true negro" type..and the East Asian Mongol type. And everything else is just a mix LOL.
Posts: 143 | From: The United States Of America (sadly) | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:AND when these countries did start their expansion GREECE was part of the MUSLIM EAST.
Greece may have been part of the "Muslim EAst" but only because the Byzantine Greeks were finally conquered by the Ottoman Empire. The Greeks themselves were always Christians and practiced Christianity. And the Greeks were the first to liberate themselves from the Ottoman empire.
Greeks dislike Muslims I assure you.
Posts: 143 | From: The United States Of America (sadly) | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sir Infamous wrote:There is no such thing as a "Mediterraneanist". There is only Nordicism and Afrocentrism.
Mediterranean people seek only their own history, not others.
What then do you called the Hamatic theory devoloped by Sergi. who swarmed his so-called black whites all over Africa untill one could find notthing but Hamities simi-Hamities-Hamitized Negroes... and all this was decades before anything close to what is called Afrocentrism came into being.
Sir Infamous wrote;LOL talk about Insanity, I suppose the creator created an original 3 races, The White Nordic type, Black "true negro" type..and the East Asian Mongol type. And everything else is just a mix LOL
Yes that was the talking point going back not only to the original Eurocentrics,but to people who postulated the curse of Noach...early on 19th cent.Eurocentric Scientics not entirely devorced from the Bibical myth.would then used a kind of modified version redressed as science and from there it evolved and morphed into many forms. But my whole point of this thread was to go back to the beginning to take a look at the people who first started this and why...and it had to do with justification for European expansionism...Because it seems we humans need to morally justify our actions always.If you can take someones land and labour and you don't want to feel guilty you make something up...make them less than human-sub human if you will. It was no supprise then the Euro-nations who were the last to get in on the action of colonization were the last to add to those theories.Because they themselves were look upon as female races..and countries like Greece although providing inspirations through their historical accomplishments...were non the less looked up on at the time as degenerate and soild with non European or non Aryan blood. It was in this environment that the Italians sought to restore their manhood by invading Libya and Ethiopia...after that devastating defeat at the battle Adowa they all most sank to the level of non whites by almost every north European country and America. This by the way was almost mirrored the defeat of the Zarist Russian navy at the battle of Tsushima by the Japanese...who then sought to join the European colonist club but was soundly rejected for racial reasons and thus setting the stage for ww2.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was going to mention this but I forgot, the idea of tribalism seems to be more of late 19th and 20th century invention. This is from Hegel and from what he describes it would seem the problem is more extreme nationalism rather than tribalism. Or something else altogether... One thing I found very interesting was the term Fanaticism. This was done to justify the slave trade because he is ignoring that these problems might be connected to contact with Europeans
quote:Turning our attention in the next place to the category of political constitution, we shall see that the entire nature of this race is such as to preclude the existence of any such arrangement. The standpoint of humanity at this grade is mere sensuous volition with energy of will; since universal spiritual laws (for example, that of the morality of the Family) cannot be recognized here. Universality exists only as arbitrary subjective choice. The political bond can therefore not possess such a character as that free laws should unite the community. There is absolutely no bond, no restraint upon that arbitrary volition. Nothing but external force can hold the State together for a moment. A ruler stands at the head, for sensuous barbarism can only be restrained by despotic power. But since the subjects are of equally violent temper with their master, they keep him on the other hand within limits. Under the chief there are many other chiefs with whom the former, whom we will call the King, takes counsel, and whose consent he must seek to gain, if he wishes to undertake a war or impose a tax. In this relation he can exercise more or less authority, and by fraud or force can on occasion put this or that chieftain out of the way. Besides this the Kings have other specified prerogatives. Among the Ashantees the King inherits all the property left by his subjects at their death. In other places all unmarried women belong to the King, and whoever wishes a wife, must buy her from him......
Fanaticism, which, notwithstanding the yielding disposition of the Negro in other respects, can be excited, surpasses, when roused, all belief. An English traveller states that when a war is determined on in Ashantee, solemn ceremonies precede it: among other things the bones of the King’s mother are laved with human blood. As a prelude to the war, the King ordains an onslaught upon his own metropolis, as if to excite the due degree of frenzy. The King sent word to the English Hutchinson: ‘Christian, take care, and watch well over your family. The messenger of death has drawn his sword and will strike the neck of many Ashantees; when the drum sounds it is the death signal for multitudes. Come to the King, if you can, and fear nothing for yourself.” The drum beat, and a terrible carnage was begun; all who came in the way of the frenzied Negroes in the streets were stabbed. On such occasions the King has all whom he suspects killed, and the deed then assumes the character of a sacred act. Every idea thrown into the mind of the Negro is caught up and realized with the whole energy of his will; but this realization involves a wholesale destruction. These people continue long at rest, but suddenly their passions ferment, and then they are quite beside themselves. The destruction which is the consequence of their excitement, is caused by the fact that it is no positive idea, no thought which produces these commotions; — a physical rather than a spiritual enthusiasm. In Dahomey, when the King dies, the bonds of society are loosed; in his palace begins indiscriminate havoc and disorganization. All the wives of the King (in Dahomey their number is exactly 3,333) are massacred, and through the whole town plunder and carnage run riot. The wives of the King regard this their death as a necessity; they go richly attired to meet it. The authorities have to hasten to proclaim the new governor, simply to put a stop to massacre
quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: Sir Infamous wrote:There is no such thing as a "Mediterraneanist". There is only Nordicism and Afrocentrism.
Mediterranean people seek only their own history, not others.
This claim is bogus.
There would be no historical movements talking about 'Mediterranean Vikings" or "Mongols" because the Vikings are a northern European people, and the Mongols an Asiatic ones. The question is Mediterranist racial theories.
Contrary to his inaccurate statement, there is such a thing as "Mediterranist thinking" not only from G. Sergi but from several others as well. His notion that "here is no such thing as a "Mediterraneanist" and that "Mediterranean people seek only their own history, not others" is undermined and contradicted by volumes of writings by those asserting exactly the opposite.
The book below shows that his claim is inaccurate.
Racial theories in fascist Italy By Aaron Gillette
posted
Hmmm, where does Sergi ever write such a thing. I own Mediterranean Race and have read it cover to cover a few times over the last 25 years and have never seen all this stuff so many claim to be in it.
What Sergi did was tear a new hole into the Aryan model of N. Med history decades before Bernal was so much as a proposition from his father to his mother.
quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: ...the Hamatic theory devoloped by Sergi. who swarmed his so-called black whites all over Africa untill one could find notthing but Hamities simi-Hamities-Hamitized Negroes...
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
There is an even better relief showing 6-8 knights from Parthian/Sassanian Persia in a battle joust with full armor and horse barding from 300 AD where Ardavan V and Ardashir I were engaged in a climactic duel.
No doubt this is an ancient craft tradition in the region. Boats in this area are probably like the ones used in the Islamic invasions of Europe... and from which Europeans derived their own boat making traditions. http://www.flickr.com/photos/82774793@N00/2267681116
posted
Well an apology to the Sergi is due as I do not own his books.. I first came across his name in one of Diop's books as the father or one of the fathers Hamaticism.
If the Following is not in his book then I am in error.
Sergi Later scholars expanded on these ideas, the most influential was the Italian race theorist Giuseppe Sergi. In his book The Mediterranean Race (1901) Sergi argued that there was a distinct Hamitic racial group which could be divided into two sub-groups: The northern Hamites, which comprised Berbers, Toubou, Fulani and the Guanches; the Eastern branch, which comprised Egyptians, Nubians, Ethiopians, Oromo, Somali, and Tutsis.[7] Some of these groups had "lost their language" and so had to be identified by physical characteristics. In Sergi's theory, the Mediterraneans were the "greatest race in the world", and had expanded north and south from the Horn of Africa, creating superior civilizations. Sergi described the original European peoples as "Eurafricans". The ancient Greeks and Italians were born from "Afro-Mediterraneans" who migrated from western Asia and had originally spoken a Hamitic language before the advent of Indo-European languages.from Wiki.
Thanks Zarahan, very informative link...the funny thing about Mussolini is he himself did not believed in any pure race theory as the link pointed out and race was a feeling not a fact as he stated also, very different from his buddy Adolph.But if he knew that race and race theory was a con why then did he play into it. Intresting also that turn of the cent 1900~1915 Italian thinking on the matter of race was no different than Roman times...that environment determined racial attitude.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:...the funny thing about Mussolini is he himself did not believed in any pure race theory as the link pointed out and race was a feeling not a fact as he stated also, very different from his buddy Adolph.But if he knew that race and race theory was a con why then did he play into it.
Could it be that he was mindful of the "divide and conquer" strategy? More often than not, its strategists ("dupers") are readily aware of the bogus nature of the specific 'divide and conquer' tools at hand than the "dupee" or recipients of that strategy.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nice pics Doug,would like to see the rest of the video.Btw is this the same Zar that Ausar spoke about some time ago...and not for notthing but Qeshem sounds alot like kushem or Kush...Am I on the right tract any of you linguist out there or just making thing up?
As featured on the video:
During a special ceremony called Zar (which means possession), different afflictions of the women can be treated. When there is no camera around, their only possible cry of distress is often death.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: Nice pics Doug,would like to see the rest of the video.Btw is this the same Zar that Ausar spoke about some time ago...and not for notthing but Qeshem sounds alot like kushem or Kush...Am I on the right tract any of you linguist out there or just making thing up?
There is an island nearby called Kish. However, I am not into linguistics so I cannot comment.
But given the location of these places right across the narrowest part of the Persian Gulf, it only makes sense that people have been migrating along this route for a long time..... And yes, the dark skinned people there are considered aboriginal, at least by some accounts.
posted
Thanks Doug,Btw I visited Baharain and other Persian Gulf Countries back in my sailor days and I would often see dark-skinned people like the ones above.I would often wonder about their origins...I finaly work up the courage to ask one of them a perfume trader about his origins and all he could tell me was he and his family was always there always trading in gold and spices.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course. The only people brain washed about their history are Africans in America and many of those in Africa. Everyone else knows the truth, INCLUDING Europeans........
Which is the point of scientific racism and the watering down of African studies and that is to keep them brainwashed.
Posts: 8901 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah Bro Altakruri;I definatly missread Sergi,as he stated what he considered Hamities migrated from... not to > The African Horn;
the Mediterraneans were the "greatest race in the world", and had expanded north and south from the Horn of Africa, creating superior civilizations. Sergi described the original European peoples as "Eurafricans". The ancient Greeks and Italians were born from "Afro-Mediterraneans" who migrated from western Asia and had originally spoken a Hamitic language before the advent of Indo-European languages.from Wiki.
Thanks for the alternate view...E/S is back. Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
What then do you called the Hamatic theory devoloped by Sergi. who swarmed his so-called black whites all over Africa untill one could find notthing but Hamities simi-Hamities-Hamitized Negroes... and all this was decades before anything close to what is called Afrocentrism came into being.
Sergi thought "Hamitic Mediterraneans" invaded Southern Europe from North African and the Near East during the neolithic. And actually modern Genetics is showing his theories to be somewhat correct.
"About 8,000 years ago a more advanced people, the Neolithic, migrated to Europe from the Middle East, bringing with them a new Y chromosome pattern and a new way of life - agriculture. About 20 percent of Europeans now have the Y chromosome pattern from this migration."
Geneticist, Peter Underhill:
Sergi never claimed history for so called "Mediterraneans" outside of civilization around the Mediterranean. His book was to soley counter "Aryan" hogwash theories. Back then you see, Aryan was used as virtually a synonym for Nordic and it was thought the "Proto Indo-Euoropean" homeland was in Scandinavia or Northern Germany. And then somehow these languages were spread by "Nordic Aryan" conquerors. lol. It would be like me saying because proto-Afro Asiatic probably started in Ethiopia the Afro-Asiatic languages was spread by Ethiopian conquerors lol. And btw the proto-Indo-European language more than likely started in the North Pontic Steppes in the Southern Ukraine.
Nordicist say the ancient Greeks and Romans were Nordic, and even claim Egyptians, Babylonians, Persians etc. Similarly Afrocentrics do the same thing with civilization around the Mediterranean .
Mediterraneanism doesn't exist because ancient Mediterranean civilizations were actually created by ancient Mediterranean people. So there is no need for a pseudo historical movement lol. And you wont see Mediterraneans claiming Vikings or Mongols or Arabs or something way outside the mediterranean Kernal like Nordicists and afrocentrics do.
Of course I don't believe in a homogeneous "mediterranean race" and I realize their is a difference between people occupying the Northern and Southern coasts of the Mediterranean.
Posts: 143 | From: The United States Of America (sadly) | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sir Infamous...I already revisied my opinion on Sergi see the above post but dont tell me that Medicentrism don't exist...because that was the basic mis-use of the term Hamitic by others and Mussilini's blantant use of the con of race that he himself didn't really believed in. and if you really think about it real Afro-centered people are mainly concerned with developements in Africa weather North,South,East or West Africa....That people North of the Med carrying African DNA...Don't really really matter much to true Afro-centered people...We claim Africa from the Delta to the Cape. from the edge of the sea that wash the shores of Senegal to the splashing of the waves on some sand dunes in Somalia.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Claiming Mediterraneanism doesn't exist is bogus because people who identify themselves as Mediterraneanist not only exist but have written numerous books explaining and defending their theories. Denying this does not change the reality. And if Sergi's writings advancing Mediterranean supremacy were to counter Aryan propaganda, doesn't that in itself show that Mediterraneanist theory existed, over and above the other documentary evidence? The book below uses the term Mediterraneanist quite frequently as it presents the writings of various advocates.
Racial theories in fascist Italy By Aaron Gillette
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5906 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scientific Racism is simply the Europeans way of trying to flip history on its head and put themselves in a position of supremacy they historically never had.
This is why they downplay the fact that most of Medieval culture in Europe is in fact Persian and Asian culture and African.
posted
Jeez Doug!!Persia enthusiast should flock to see this devastating info...untill now I took for granted all the the above as belonging to European styles and fashion.But I guess they will come back with Persians are Aryans and so are we thingy.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
One of the earliest Europeans to see Lalibela was the Portuguese priest Francisco Álvares (1465 - 1540), who accompanied the Portuguese Ambassador on his visit to Lebna Dengel in the 1520s. His description of these structures concludes:
I weary of writing more about these buildings, because it seems to me that I shall not be believed if I write more ... I swear by God, in Whose power I am, that all I have written is the truth
quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: Jeez Doug!!Persia enthusiast should flock to see this devastating info...untill now I took for granted all the the above as belonging to European styles and fashion.But I guess they will come back with Persians are Aryans and so are we thingy.
Interestingly enough, some ancient peoples of the Persian area (Iran) looked like Africans according to scientific data. Hanihara 1996 studied Bronze Age types and found they cluster more closely with Africans than with other groups. Indeed his study directly contradicts claims by Carleton Coons, Howells and early C.L. Brace.
Posts: 5906 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
@ Zarahan..scroll up to the brother in with shades and the folks in colorfull garb squating around having a conversation plus this http://www.linktv.org/programs/other all these folks are native to the area.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic