posted
4 whole days and 100 posts since I requested his supporting evidence and he's posted 3 times with fluff. What more does he deserve? He's just good for cat-n-mouse not a serious exchange between opposing sides each backed with data that makes each side as valid as the other's interpretation.
But we're not locked down yet, so ....
And, he can always start his own thread Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:You have been soundly defeated, unable to produce any objective support for your proposition of a genetic/cultural/historic European unity.
Then explain to me how europe was able to colonise the world.
quote: Christian Europeans united to seize Israel from Muslim rule. There was no united European front and as Al Takuri's point was that many regions of Europe were occupied by Muslims at the time who did not support and even resisted the crusades.
Don't be so closed minded, the TEMPLAR KNIGHTS who were a continental european army were major players in the liberation of moslem occupied Europe. Don't fool yourself into thinking that Europe was freed from the yoke of islam by pure luck.
quote:You aim to prove European unity by showing Europeans allying against other Europeans?
Europeans united against the ambitions of france and germany.
quote:Those cultures had their foundations in Ancient Egypt and Mesopatamia.
It still doesn't change the fact that the Renaissance had its roots in those cultures.
quote:Ghengis Khan's empire was primarily situated in Central Asia and not an imminent threat to Europe, his descendants did invade Poland and parts of Eastern Europe but there was no major campaign to subdue Europe that would cause mass resistance from the Western kingdoms.
I think you shoudl read up on their conquests , they were very close to taking over all of europe but their leader died on the way and they turned back.
quote:Neither rape nor slavery is responsible for the spread of Islam in East Africa.
It may have not been responsible for it but there sure was a lot of raping and slaving. By the way aren't the zanj the same slaves who revolted in Bagdad?
Posts: 94 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
Then explain to me how europe was able to colonise the world.
Much more complex than the issue of "unity". It has to do with expanding industrial revolution in the European regions, instigated by Islamic-Arab world introductions of modern science into the region, during the "middle ages", and its ensuing effect on local goods in various regions. It is not like the Europeans "colonized" the world overnight, much less being a cakewalk, or without divisions over lands to control. Internal factors in the various "colonized" regions have also assisted European imperialists in varying degrees.
quote:Mike: It still doesn't change the fact that the Renaissance had its roots in those cultures.
Actually has its roots in the growth of the Arab-Islamic world in the "Middle Ages".
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Supercar, More important to the creation of colonialism was the wealth that poured into Europe following the establishment of the spanish Empire after 1492. Keep in mind that prior to 1500 Europe was a very static society. The was very little dynamic at work due to the rigid social structure and the control of the Catholic church. The influx of new wealth broke down the social structure and the Protestant reformation destroyed the hold of the church on European institutions. Both of these events led to the development of capitalism which gave Europe a huge advantage over others sections of the world. Additionally, during the 18th century new systems of finance were developed in the UK which led to the Induatrial revolution.
The importance of Arab/Islamic knowledge seeping into Europe is real but should not be over estimated. Peter Abelard and others were able to use that information to move the church to a more Aristotlian position. That this contributed to the Reformation is clear and that was its major contribution.
Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sorry, this may sound racist, but seems like everything went DOWNHILL when Europe finally "got on it's feet".
Posts: 290 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
well, I suppose if you think the creation of the modern world is going "downhill" then you make a point. Would you rather we still lived in the 10th century?
-------------------- God Bless President Bush Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Renaissance (due primarily to infusions from Andalusian Moorish knowledge) is not the Reformation. The Reformation was later and more or less marked the close of the Renaissance. There is no escaping European indeptness to Islamic Civilization for the preservation of a great many of antiquity's text and the scientific spirit in general, all of which were forbidden in Europe by its own Roman Catholic Empire and Church.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
correct Takriri,but I'm not sure debt would be a good word. Debt implies that all of the Islamic world preserved the material. In fact much of it was sent east to India to preserve it from hostile Muslim clerics. The Reformation in the 15th century though, was much more important to the creation of modern Europe.
-------------------- God Bless President Bush Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mostly agreed, with exception of alAndalus which stood outside much of the other Islamic states markedly in its tolerant attitude. AlAndalus (Moorish "Spain") was directly on the continent of Europe and both its Muslims and Jews were very influential to the science and philosophy of adjacent Europe. AlAndalus had no need to spirit materials to India or anywhere because it had an infinitesimal few if any "hostile Muslim clerics."
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, in fact there is a great scene described in "Aristotle's children' where Catholic, Jewish, and Muslim scholars were all working on translating those documents together. Many do not realize that the arguments over rational thought and Aristotle (wherther they should be taught) were not between catholics and outsiders but rather between factons WITHIN the church itself.
Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Horemheb: well, I suppose if you think the creation of the modern world is going "downhill" then you make a point. Would you rather we still lived in the 10th century?
Actually Hore, I think what Tee meant was that the other civilizations went downhill when Europeans set up their global hegemony.
I find it rather bias but unsurprising that you continuously attribute the formation of "the modern world" to Europeans only. Again, may I remind you that African wealth and Asian technology was what helped Europe get "to its feet" and thus create the 'modern world' in the first place. Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nothing takes place in a vacuum Djehuti and thus you make a point. the reformation and the establishment of the spanish Empire after 1500 contributed much more however. i mentioned some of that on a post higher up on this thread. The emergence of Europe after 1500 is a tremendous subject and the amount of literature avilable is staggering. It is no doubt the biggest event in all of history to this point and worth of much of our attention. i think language and religion also had a good bit to do with it as well as new systems of finance developed by the British in the 18th century.
-------------------- God Bless President Bush Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
Supercar, More important to the creation of colonialism was the wealth that poured into Europe following the establishment of the spanish Empire after 1492
You can say that again, since the Arab-Islamic [misleading word since these folks were brought together under Arab influence, and not a homogenous entity either in terms of religion or indigenous languages; Arabic was used as a lingua franca among these though] did much to "modernize" European social institutions. Money would have been used in this venture.
quote:Horemheb:
Keep in mind that prior to 1500 Europe was a very static society.
No kidding.
quote:Horemheb:
The was very little dynamic at work due to the rigid social structure and the control of the Catholic church.
What dynamic did much of Europe, barring the "Mediterranean vicinity" [interestingly near Africa and "Near East"], have even before your so-called "rigid social structure and control" the Catholic church had?
quote:Horemheb:
The influx of new wealth broke down the social structure and the Protestant reformation destroyed the hold of the church on European institutions.
"Wealth" that came along with "modern" science from the "Arab-Islamic" world.
quote:Horemheb:
Both of these events led to the development of capitalism which gave Europe a huge advantage over others sections of the world.
Yep, those "processes", aided in the encouragement of creating 'private' companies, some of which eventually expanded by using 'intensive' labor; the ensuing competition of private companies in different locales, assisted in the expansion of industrial growth, and naturally out of this, "capitalism" becomes inevitable, with greed becoming motivation for everything - expansion to locations outside Europe in search of of both cheap labor and natural resources. This is what drove European expansion after the so-called "renaissance"; "European unity" was the least in the minds of Europeans - whatever "unity" was maintained between competiting entities, was of happenstance, out of the need to get a common goal out of the way, and then, it is every person for him/herself - still is the case in Europe.
quote:Horemheb:
The importance of Arab/Islamic knowledge seeping into Europe is real but should not be over estimated.
There is "nothing to estimate", the importance of Arab-Islamic knowledge and "wealth" flowing into Europe was crucial into making Europe what it is today, just as the "Neolithic" and post-Neolithic expansions of Africans and Asians were crucial prior to the growth of Arab influence.
Moreover, the notion that the "Arab-Islamic" world simply "preserved" pre-existing knowledge is the biggest bullsh*t I've ever heard. Give me substantial evidence that the "modern" science that was poured into Europe in the "Middle periods" was the same as it was left by the ancients? Science was "progressing" through the "Arab/Islamic" world, it wasn't static or stagnant - that this progression of science was not through Europeans, is what drives this notion of the so-called "Dark Ages". For instance, even the weapon that European would ultimately use to "colonize" different parts of the world, i.e. the GUN/Cannon, interestingly has its roots in the Arab/Islamic world - show me such an element in the "ancients" prior to the so-called "Middle Ages"?!
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
what happeneded in neolithic times is not important to this discussion. Your post is riddled with moral indignation Super car. there is no place for that in an accurate historiacl analysis. I think I stated that pre 1500 Europe was not a dynamic society. The opening of the what historians call the 'frontier' after 1500 poured wealth into europe that changed the social structure, made the reformation possible and led, in a couple of centuries to the industrial revolution and the creation of what we call the modern world. For historical purposes I am not the least bit interested in who became slaves and who was at fault or who was abused. an accurate discription of the period simply looks at what happened and reports it. What changed because of the events of history and what stayed the same.
-------------------- God Bless President Bush Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
European "civilization" has, to my knowledge, the sole distinction of being the only culture in the history of humanity that was built upon the exploitation and the subjugation of other human cultures; in fact, all of the great cities of Europe were built from the economic spoils stolen from Africa, Asia, and Latin America:
a) Ancient Egypt was a self-sustaining, self-created culture which grew out of the development of African civilization; its economy was not dependent either upon slavery nor foreign colonization or exploitiation...
b) Ancient China also did not create its civilization based upon the exploitation of foreign peoples; it too was self-sustaining and self-created; in fact, China built a wall to keep foreign peoples out of its civilization (as did Egypt with fortresses in the north)...
c) The same can be said of the civilizations of the Americas...
It was only the young, emerging peoples of "Europe" whose civilization (actually imperial colonization and exploitation) was brought about through slavery, colonization, and the imperialist exploitation of foreign peoples. This process can be said to have begun as early as antiquity (Macedonia, Rome, etc.) ...
Posts: 3344 | From: Berkeley | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
what happeneded in neolithic times is not important to this discussion.
It certainly was crucial to Meds., particularly the Greeks, from whence Neolithic economy was transferred elsewhere in Europe, and whom [ancient Greeks] you interestingly 'worship' as the founder 'western civ.' How then, can you separate it from the development of Europe, even within the context of your own distorted logic?
quote:Horemheb:
I think I stated that pre 1500 Europe was not a dynamic society.
...and so, blaming the Catholic church for lack of dynamism is just hot air, pure and simple - a blame game excuse that Eurocentrist use, to maintain the notion of a European miracle, just like the "Greek" miracle.
quote: Horemheb:
The opening of the what historians call the 'frontier' after 1500 poured wealth into europe that changed the social structure,
Looks like "Europe" was the "frontier" for Africans and Asians prior to your "magic" era of the 15th century, huh!
quote:Horemheb:
...made the reformation possible and led, in a couple of centuries to the industrial revolution and the creation of what we call the modern world. For historical purposes I am not the least bit interested in who became slaves and who was at fault or who was abused. an accurate discription of the period simply looks at what happened and reports it. What changed because of the events of history and what stayed the same.
To test your broken logic, what "specific" single event marked the appearance of the "modern world"; what "specific" date did that single event occur? LOL.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is all idealistic utopian crap. Again wally, moral posturing has no place in the examination of history. Black Africans gathered up their own people and sold them into slavery to white slave traders. If you want to understand history...follow the money.
Have you actually read chinese history or is this just another effort to slam the west. By the way, you are a member of western civilization yourself and owe everything you have from your language to your underware to it.
-------------------- God Bless President Bush Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
b) Ancient China also did not create its civilization based upon the exploitation of foreign peoples; it too was self-sustaining and self-created; in fact, China built a wall to keep foreign peoples out of its civilization (as did Egypt with fortresses in the north)...
Chinese civilization was built on the exploitation of foriegn people. These foreign people were called Qiang. This group was used as slaves, along with the li min "Black Heads", founders of the Xia and Shang civilization to create the wealth of the Zhou civilization. The founders of the Zhou civilization were called Hua, they rule China today.
quote:Originally posted by Horemheb: This is all idealistic utopian crap. Again wally, moral posturing has no place in the examination of history. Black Africans gathered up their own people and sold them into slavery to white slave traders. If you want to understand history...follow the money.
You talk as if black Africans were 1 solid group of people. Most of the slaves kept by certain African kingdoms or nations were foreigners, that is peoples from other nations (like Egypt). In African society, slaves were still treated humanely (same as Egypt). It was the white slave traders who treated their purchased slaves like chattel.
quote:Have you actually read chinese history or is this just another effort to slam the west...
Have YOU read Chinese history??
China actually started out the same way as Mesopotamia, consisting of city-states which ruled successively one after the other. The Chinese did not become united until around the 2nd century BC under the Qin (Chin) dynasty. This was when China gained power as an empire. Many people tend to forget that the actual land occupied by the Han (ethnic Chinese) is actually a lot smaller than today's modern China. The extra land was gained through conquest and colonisation of nonChinese people.
quote:..By the way, you are a member of western civilization yourself and owe everything you have from your language to your underware to it.
Yes, and I am proud to be a member of Western Civilization. What's your point??
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Chinese civilization was built on the exploitation of foriegn people. These foreign people were called Qiang. This group was used as slaves, along with the li min "Black Heads", founders of the Xia and Shang civilization to create the wealth of the Zhou civilization. The founders of the Zhou civilization were called Hua, they rule China today.
Again, you bring up that the first Chinese kings were black. Is there any evidence of this??
Is there any proof whatsoever that the Xia or Shang or any Chinese dynasty for that matter was black??
Where did these blacks come from?
You are already wrong about Dravidians of India, even though they are black. What makes you think there is any veracity to your claims about the Chinese of which there are no black people.
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Again, you bring up that the first Chinese kings were black. Is there any evidence of this??
I have not discussed Black Kings of China. I am discusing the fact that Chinese used slaves to build their civilization just like Europeans.
Yang Kan observed that the li Qiang (Black Qiang) were farmers who lived in Qiangfang (in Yunnan Province). They were made slaves by the Yin-Shang, who forced them to work their farms and work as artisans.See:
Yang Kan, “The Bronze culture of Western Yunnan”, Bull. of the Ancient Orient Museum (Tokyo), (1965) 7:47-91
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
OK, now that this thread has concluded its subject header due to its indefensible nature, I wonder about something.
I once dated a little Indonesian hottie who told me that of course her folk were "foreign immigrants" there and ethnically were "white Chinese."
I don't know if this is solely an Indonesian thing but she obviously was refering to her pale white transluscent skin. So, if there are "white Chinese" are there not "black Chinese?"
Don't the Tcheu-Li documents (12th-3rd cent. BCE) speak of diminutive folk with black oily skin on Taiwan?
Was Lao-tzse born of a virgin black in colour and beautiful as jasper?
What of Liu-Nan's mention (2nd cent. BCE) of a kingdom of diminutive black skins in southwest China?
Doesn't the Chiu T'ang Shu say that the people south of Lin-yi have both wooly hair and black skin?
What of the empress Li's, consort of Hsiao Wu Wen, descriptions as a black?
Or the 200,000 strong Nakhi?
Maybe these are all chimeras, what can you tell me about the above?
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ... the Chinese of which there are no black people.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Horemheb: Pay attention Djehuti, I was talking about the African slave trade after 1500. Again, blacks sold other blacks to European slave traders.
Yes, and my reference to Africans' system of slavery also included that time period!
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
OK, now that this thread has concluded its subject header due to its indefensible nature, I wonder about something.
I once dated a little Indonesian hottie who told me that of course her folk were "foreign immigrants" there and ethnically were "white Chinese."
I don't know if this is solely an Indonesian thing but she obviously was refering to her pale white transluscent skin. So, if there are "white Chinese" are there not "black Chinese?"
Don't the Tcheu-Li documents (12th-3rd cent. BCE) speak of diminutive folk with black oily skin on Taiwan?
Was Lao-tzse born of a virgin black in colour and beautiful as jasper?
What of Liu-Nan's mention (2nd cent. BCE) of a kingdom of diminutive black skins in southwest China?
Doesn't the Chiu T'ang Shu say that the people south of Lin-yi have both wooly hair and black skin?
What of the empress Li's, consort of Hsiao Wu Wen, descriptions as a black?
Or the 200,000 strong Nakhi?
Maybe these are all chimeras, what can you tell me about the above?
That depends on what one means by 'black'. Many of the peoples you describe such as the indigenous Taiwanese were just darker-skinned Asians but not really 'black' in the sense that we use. Of course many Chinese especially from the north as well as other northern Asians like Koreans and Japanese would describe themselves as 'white' and Southeast Asians like myself as 'black'.
This is not to say that there weren't any true black people in those parts of Asia. I'm sure there existed certain aboriginal tribes in certain areas. The earliest dynasty of the Funan kingdom Cambodia was said to be ruled by small, very dark queens with frizzy hair. Many scholars think that such a dynasty consisted of 'Negrito' type peoples.
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
b) Ancient China also did not create its civilization based upon the exploitation of foreign peoples; it too was self-sustaining and self-created; in fact, China built a wall to keep foreign peoples out of its civilization (as did Egypt with fortresses in the north)...
Chinese civilization was built on the exploitation of foriegn people. These foreign people were called Qiang. This group was used as slaves, along with the li min "Black Heads", founders of the Xia and Shang civilization to create the wealth of the Zhou civilization. The founders of the Zhou civilization were called Hua, they rule China today.
.
Thanks Dr. Winters. This is an interesting revelation and bears, at least on my part, further investigation. I had no idea that Chinese civilization was built upon the basis of foreign slave labor and/or foreign exploitation. Could you provide me (us) with references to these Qiang people. Thanks.
Posts: 3344 | From: Berkeley | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Since we all understand that black does not equal African, I'm confused that the listed blacks of China aren't black Chines. What's a true black? Is that like a true negro? And what do you mean by "not really 'black' in the sense that we use"? That sounds exactly what some say about Africans who aren't the proverbial "sub-saharan."
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
This is not to say that there weren't any true black people in those parts of Asia.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, I date within my race, the human race. There's little alTakruri bastards running around on every continent (including Antartica) and most of the islands. It's my plan for the alTakruri conquest of the planet.
Clan alTakruri is here, BOW DOWN!!!
quote:Originally posted by African_Bible_Expert: I once dated a little Indonesian hottie who told me that of course her folk were "foreign immigrants" there and ethnically were "white Chinese."
See this is what really burns me up about self hating African Americans. On one hand when someone says Egyptians were either not black or mixed you get furious, yet you date out of your race and don't like your own women!!!!!! wtf is that. You cannot succeed as a culture and have your own genders divided like that. So I guess African American women aren't pretty cuz of those evil African features(yet yall claim to be African scholars) but you BEG for these features when you are posting Egyptian statues and glyphs. You African Americans really embarras we non-African American blacks because you seem to be the only ones that hate yourselves. It's really disgusting and even though I like the posts from Alktruri I really wasn't surprised he dates out of his race which is disappointing, but oh well. All I am saying is it really doesn't make sense from an objective perspective.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Africans screwed themselves over by being so divided after the end of the Egytian Empire. From my understanding Egypt is the OLDEST Black Empire in Africa and mostly all of the tribes and subsequent kingsdoms are just off-shoots of Egypt founded by people over hundreds of years af Migration ove the continent after being driven out of Egypt by foreigners.
All that division, PLUS not being able to get your hands on the gun. That's GOT to really screw you over.
Most often times during the Slave Trade one African state/tribe/group would not help another defend itself against foreigners because they saw themselves as unique and different. Imperialist Europeans would play this up by giving one group/tribe guns thus giving them incentive to attack another group for slaves ala the slave TRAAAAADE.
That's why I don;t know why Africans get pissed at Black Americans, It's not our Fault we're in America LMAO.
I'm not gonna lie. Europeans have a VICE GRIP on this worl and are not letting it go, even though they are the minority.
It's mainly for the aforementioned reasons--Blacks fighting each other, sel-hatred, racism
Don't get me wrong, I'm not an advocate for Pan-Africanism.
Posts: 290 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
All that division, PLUS not being able to get your hands on the gun. That's GOT to really screw you over.
Most often times during the Slave Trade one African state/tribe/group would not help another defend itself against foreigners because they saw themselves as unique and different. Imperialist Europeans would play this up by giving one group/tribe guns thus giving them incentive to attack another group for slaves ala the slave TRAAAAADE.
That's why I don;t know why Africans get pissed at Black Americans, It's not our Fault we're in America LMAO.
It was not the break up of Egypt that led to the rise of the Atlantic Slave Trade, it was the fall of the Songhay Empire. Once this Empire fell independent West African nations were able to make deals with the Portuguese and other Europeans to sell African slaves.
In addition, Africans did learn how to make guns. Its just that they did not manufacture guns in great numbers.
The fall of Songhay, and rise of many independent nations led to the fall of these nations through use of divide and rule tactics.
Moreover, it would appear from your post that you believe Europeans have ruled Africa for hundreds of years. This not true. Most African nations were colonied between 1885-1900. And by the 1950's African nations, beginning with Ghana, began to become independent from colonial rule.
Although Europeans no longer rule Africa physically, the minds of Africans are controlled by Europeans, because most African nations accept the view that social science knowledge is neutral and therefore they allow their schools to use curriculum modeled on those used in the West. These models of history and textbooks , promote Western civilization and in the end encourage African people to believe they have contributed nothing to history and therefore have always been ruled by Europeans.
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm glad this discussion has moved away from questioning the unity of europeans. Europe may not be completely united but we are far more united than any other continent in the world.
quote:Can anyone tell me about the Mamelukes. Weren't they "white" slaves tot he Arabs.
Yes, they were slaves who revolted and then became masters of egypt.
Posts: 94 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
I'm glad this discussion has moved away from questioning the unity of europeans. Europe may not be completely united but we are far more united than any other continent in the world.
I agree. But the burden of Europe is Nationalism/Tribalism. I fear that it is only a matter of time it will raise its ugly head again and another war will break out.
To keep Europe united, you have to placate the Germanic tribes. Since the Germanic defeat of the Romans, Germanic speaking people have periodically instigated wars to take control of the European continent.To keep Europe unified, you have to keep the Germans happy.
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
Its not solely a matter of the Germans. Ever hear of Balkanization? This century it's Kosovo, Bosnia, Serbia, etc.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Michael
What? You're still ranting on with this Europa uber alles spiel?
Amazing!
You're glad this discussion's moved away from the issue you brought up? Then why the hell did you bring it up in the first place?
Your emotional stance of European unity of genes, culture, and history, had no rational evidence to back it up. Even after narrowing it down to just two examples, Danes and Greeks or Romani and Irish, you still presented no data. That's why we're not discussing it.
Time to put this thread on lockdown. The other relevant matters entertained here can be taken up in other ongoing threads or forum members cab start new threads to further explore them.
quote:Originally posted by MichaelFromQuebec: I'm glad this discussion has moved away from questioning the unity of europeans.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I agree. But the burden of Europe is Nationalism/Tribalism. I fear that it is only a matter of time it will raise its ugly head again and another war will break out.
As long as there is a sizeable amount of foreigners in Europe this will never happen.
quote:To keep Europe unified, you have to keep the Germans happy.
I think the german's have learnt their lesson, I seriously doubt they will plunge Europe into another war.
First off, I didn't bring up the topic it was idiots like you who were questioning European unity.
quote:Your emotional stance of European unity of genes, culture, and history, had no rational evidence to back it up. Even after narrowing it down to just two examples, Danes and Greeks or Romani and Irish, you still presented no data. That's why we're not discussing it.
I repeat Europe may not be completely united but we are far more united than anyother continent on earth.
Posts: 94 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
I'm not letting you off the hotseat you placed yourself on. The best of your present posturing can't obscure the fact that you can't support YOUR idiotic statement
quote:Originally posted by MichaelFromQuebec: ... Europeans ... share genes , culture and history. This is what makes us a real race,
by showing such between even two geometric diametric European ethnies.
Again, the little part of Europe once known as Yugoslavia is today's most pertinent example of European disunity.
quote:Originally posted by MichaelFromQuebec:
First off, I didn't bring up the topic it was idiots like you who were questioning European unity.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mikey o canada, still hasn't listed anything substantial that would back up his claims on Europe.
quote:...Europeans share genes, culture, and history...
He hasn't specified what these genes, culture, or even history that unifies them.
I feel so sorry for the guy, that even though it's cheating I'll offer just a little help.
On the 'genes' part of your claim I will just say R1. You can figure out the rest of what that means..
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The guy's obviously not playing with a full deck, nor has he all four burners. He's not cooking with gas (or electric for that matter).
Not implying that he's personally toys in the attic, just that as regards to the straight dope on Europe he makes Dopey look like Dexter.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:^^^But Turkey is NOT in Europe while Yugoslavia IS!! LOL [Big Grin] You shot yourself in the face with that statement!
What I meant by the statement was that Ottoman Influence and conquest are the reasons for ethnic-religious strife in the region.
Posts: 94 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MichaelFromQuebec: Why should I, I know who's white and who isn't.
LOL And how can we believe that when you apparently don't even know who's black and who isn't! You claimed that not only was the rural Egyptian man I showed "mixed" but also the Fulani and even Somali peoples! You even try to compare the Egyptian man to a light-skinned girl who obviously has mixed ancestry even though the Egyptian man was very dark in color and as darker than many African Americans!
quote:Culture:
How many times do I have to bring up the fact that European culture is centered around old Roman(as well as Greek) culture and Christianity.
So what your saying is basically the diffusion of influence from one or a couple of cultures to other cultures that had nothing in common..?
quote:History:
Crusades, Mongol invasion, renaissance and colonisation.
So your saying invasion of foreigners was your only commonality in history..?
You should have accepted my help,.. but if you want to do it on your own and struggle then be my guest..
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:how can we believe that when you apparently don't even know who's black and who isn't!
It's difficult when you claim anybody with a tan is black, irregardless of how they define themselves.
quote:try to compare the Egyptian man to a light-skinned girl who obviously has mixed ancestry even though the Egyptian man was very dark in color and as darker than many African Americans!
What does being darker than many African American's have to do with anything.
quote:So what your saying is basically the diffusion of influence from one or a couple of cultures to other cultures that had nothing in common..?
quote:So your saying invasion of foreigners was your only commonality in history..?
The fact that we were able to put our differences aside long enough to subdue the world is proof of our unity.
Posts: 94 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic