posted
It's a white thang! Our Med and Nord members can explain it.
But as far as I can get to it, among the many divisions continental Europeans have for themselves none are as primal as Mediterranean and Nordic. Forget about Slavs and Celts!
Historically these revert to civilized and barbarian. Initial Mediterranean Europe (really the Aegean and Adriatic) had the upper hand. The Nordic Europeans settled among them, otherwise associated with them and learned from them. Finally they assumed ascendency a few centuries ago.
Once desirous of the Elysian Fields, Nordics now jibe Mediterraneans about their partial African antecedents. Their extremist actually claim that Nordics were responsible for Greek and Roman culture.
Some Mediterraneans, suffering from a be-like complex, now attain to Valhalla. They pretend no more, even less, African infusion than Nordics.
Bernal gets the credit for it but Sergi is the Mediterranean man who took on the task of falsifying the Aryan model of Greek culture and physiognomy.
Bernal of Black Athena fame actually posits prime Levantine cultural influence for the northern Mediterraneans. Well, the Greeks one anyway.
"What then is the utility of Mediterranean race to begin with???" I guess just about the same as any other race designation but with five times the confusion factor as some place Indians in that "race". I guess it's become a catch all for whites mixed with black who have a mostly or predominant Europeanlike physiognomy in the mind of those who take it with any seriousness.
I'm not such a one. I notice that in the writings on the southern Mediterranean, "Mediterranean" is an euphemism to disguise that the original North African phenotypes are just that, African not European.
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Pseudoscience contradicts itself on it's own terms.
All the while claiming NO African genetic mixtures in Greeks and OTHER mediterraneans, these people claim an extensive list of descendants and peoples in NORTH AFRICA and Egypt, who are RELATED to the ancient Greeks.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some of these scholarly people's bias is self evident in that this Mediterranean group (Greek, Sicily, etc) have the presence of sickle cell anemia within the population and that is no accident. In certain population (Yemeni and Saudi) SCD parallels and exceeds the Greek sample sizes!
Nature's way of equanimity!
Even rasol link show the dubious 'scholarship' to wit, where the 'Aryan' link to Italy is professed but another attempt to decieve. Northern Italy has become Italianized over the centuries and 'absorbed' the Germanic element that inhabited said area. Ludoviglio and similar Germanic names still retain their roots albeit softened by the Italian language.
herr Ludwig
Posts: 1290 | From: usa | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You guys just keep trying to make a silk purse out of a pigs ear....it just won't work. As long as you stay on this african greek nonsense you will continue to lose credibility for all of the other points you try to make. The problem with racial radicals is that they tend to over reach. Stormfront does it on their extreme and many on this board do it on the other extreme.
-------------------- God Bless President Bush Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The 'Medit Race' doesn't exist and neither do all of those nonsense subraces like Nordid, Osteoeuropid, lapid and Borreby, people in dodona cling to foolishness like that. People need to properly classify human populations instead of making up nonsense subraces and labels.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The last proponents of races, outside of a few hangers-on of this forum no less, were Carleton Coon and John R. Baker.
Baker's book Race sounded the death knell for race pundits using all those -id terms.
Not sure about Coon's publishers but Baker's publisher let the copyright lapse, too embarassed by its contents to want to retain association with its backward ideology.
However the ghosts of Coon and Baker are like vampires and werewolves, infecting those bitten and thus keeping alive those nightmarish fantasies.
Nonetheless, there are regional populations. Both history and genetics tell a story of intruding peoples very heterogenous in comparison to the older indigenee inhabitants of Black Sea, Aegean Sea, Ionian Sea, Adriatic Sea, and Tyrrhenian Sea juxtaposed to North Sea, Baltic Sea, or Rhine, Elbe, Oder, Wisla, and NW Danube rivers populations, or SE Danube, Dneister and Dnieper rivers populations.
One look at the map makes it obvious that the former were visited and augumented by Africans while the latter experienced the same from Asians more so than Africans but those of neither the former or later broad regions had the least infusion from either Africa or Asia. And European ethnies are very aware of that fact and have set up a pecking order amongst themselves because of it.
The biggest testimony to it being the USA Civil Rights Act of 1964. Compare to the "eugenic" south and east European immigration xenophobia of 1924.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Xross Breed: The 'Medit Race' doesn't exist.
Correct. The concept is contrived, fake and hypocritical.
Race typologists assigned physical features like prognathism a racial designation.
This kind of designation is the foundation of racial thinking.
Yet, when these features show up in "mediterraneans" they are proclaimed to be 'non-racial'.
Everyone remember the legendary [for it's bald faced dishonesty] "Negroid vs negroid" thread, proferred on ES on behalf of a self proclaimed mediterranean racialist?
The foolish premise being that so called "negroid" traits found in Africans are 'racial', but when found in Europeans - are *not*.
Well, goodness, that's convenient isn't it?
This is and example of the logical fallacy of 'special pleading' -> adhering to a 'principal' as long as it produces a favorable outcome, but refusing to accept this same prinicipal when the outcome is not favorable.
All racialism is rooted in such basic error against logic, and sin against honesty.
Thus, no coherent, honest, theory of race exists.
Advocates of race are, as ever...invited to prove otherwise.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I notice that in the writings on the southern Mediterranean, "Mediterranean" is an euphemism to disguise that the original North African phenotypes are just that, African not European.
I've noticed this too, part of the "anything but black doctrine
quote:All the while claiming NO African genetic mixtures in Greeks and OTHER mediterraneans, these people claim an extensive list of descendants and peoples in NORTH AFRICA and Egypt, who are RELATED to the ancient Greeks.
posted
Greeks claim to come from Egypt they say there was a tribe in Egypt that came and settled in Greece if this is false or true i have no idea but everyone wants to say they come from egypt because of there great civilization. This word Mediterranean Race is used to deafricanize ancient Egyptians because europeans dont want to claim a african lineage racial bigotry has ruled Egyptology it has ruled the whole world. Every Nation thinks that they are better than AFrica and Africans. Everywhere u go the darker natives are considered the servants like we use in Masri Abid/slave even in Vietnam they call the dark natives the Barbarians in Phillipenes they call them Agta which means the bush people. Living in america i have notice that all the different races that i see u hardly ever see the native original people leave there countries now i know why.
-------------------- Hikuptah Al-Masri Posts: 526 | From: Aswan Egypt | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I notice that in the writings on the southern Mediterranean, "Mediterranean" is an euphemism to disguise that the original North African phenotypes are just that, African not European.
I've noticed this too, part of the "anything but black doctrine
quote:All the while claiming NO African genetic mixtures in Greeks and OTHER mediterraneans, these people claim an extensive list of descendants and peoples in NORTH AFRICA and Egypt, who are RELATED to the ancient Greeks.
lol
Somalis patrilineages are more related to Greeks. - Dienekes
No Kidding!
My Daddy takes after me too.
Genetics is a-mazing. So is denial. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I notice that in the writings on the southern Mediterranean, "Mediterranean" is an euphemism to disguise that the original North African phenotypes are just that, African not European.
I've noticed this too, part of the "anything but black doctrine
quote:All the while claiming NO African genetic mixtures in Greeks and OTHER mediterraneans, these people claim an extensive list of descendants and peoples in NORTH AFRICA and Egypt, who are RELATED to the ancient Greeks.
lol
Somalis patrilineages are more related to Greeks. - Dienekes
No Kidding!
My Daddy takes after me too.
Genetics is a-mazing. So is denial.
Posts: 318 | From: PA. USA | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think some of the info from this thread should come in here as well.
Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The only reason there is hostility between the 2 is because the Northerners try to claim the history of Rome and Greece. Or say there was a "Nordic elite" ruling Greece and Rome lol.
And the "Mediterraneans" take offense to it, because as we all know so called "western civilization" started in the south, not the North.
I don't know what the "Aryan model" is, but the populations of ancient Greece came from both the North and the South/East. The largest population movement into Greece happened thousands of years before the classical age during the neolithic with Near Easterners (carrying haplogroups E1b1b, J, G, and T) introducing agriculture.
And geniticist often trace Greek colonization through Y haplogroups J2b and E-V13.
Posts: 143 | From: The United States Of America (sadly) | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Northerners do not try to claim the history of Rome and Greece. Where do you guys come up with this stuff. The civilization of Rome and Greece spread across all of Europe and then was modified in the late middle ages to create the world we have today.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: Many Greeks have light, even blonde hair. Many Germans have dark hair.
Some Greeks have light hair, but they are in a small minority. Greeks, Spaniards, and Southern Italians are the most brunette/raven haired people in Europe.
Some Germans have dark hair (the Southern Germans mostly) but they are of a completly different complection than Greeks or Italians.
Posts: 143 | From: The United States Of America (sadly) | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
well, the point is that this is all nonsense. You need to find something to worry about. Wurope is a big contient and like all contients it varies from one part to the other. This is a pointless conversation. They may differ some but they are all Europeans.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: Northerners do not try to claim the history of Rome and Greece. Where do you guys come up with this stuff. The civilization of Rome and Greece spread across all of Europe and then was modified in the late middle ages to create the world we have today.
Ohh many of them DO try to to claim Greece and Rome. Or think that the Greeks and Romans looked like them
Here's some of Arthur Kemp's (A white Supremacist in Britain) fantasies
"Originally the Classical Greeks prided themselves upon possessing the "fairest eyes . . . of all the nations"
As the darker elements in Grecians society grew in number, so did the desire to mimic the original Nordic blond haired type. The Greek writer Euripides, for example, wrote a tract on how Greeks dyed their hair blond, and many other Greek writers left tracts describing how hair could be dyed blond with natural chemicals.
"Together with the original European peoples, the new Nordic settlers built upon the Old European civilizations, with the first great "city states" being built on the Greek peninsula."
"The Spartans themselves kept their society strictly divided into three classes: by blood. At the top were the Spartans themselves, nearly all Nordic, ruled by their kings (Sparta had two kings from two ancient families)."
" The lowest class of Spartan society were the darkest in the society, called helots, who were mainly Original Mediterranean racial types who had mixed with North African (Arabic, Nubian and Semitic) slaves imported into the region at an earlier date."
They also think the Mongol conqueror Ghengas Khan was "Nordic" LOL
LOL you talk about Afrocentrism, Nordicism is just as bad and pathetic. It probably stems from and Inferiority complex.
Posts: 143 | From: The United States Of America (sadly) | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
the Greeks and romans were like northern europeans in that they are all european. What you are doing is looking at a historical process that occured in europe and everywhere else, including Africa. The Helots were not a racial group. they were the same as the spartans and other groups. Helot refers to a class, not a racial group. To call them Nubian is simply insane bordering on dementia. Again, there are many things for you to do besides worry about race.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: the Greeks and romans were like northern europeans in that they are all european. What you are doing is looking at a historical process that occured in europe and everywhere else, including Africa. The Helots were not a racial group. they were the same as the spartans and other groups. Helot refers to a class, not a racial group. To call them Nubian is simply insane bordering on dementia. Again, there are many things for you to do besides worry about race.
I know, I didnt call them Nubians though. That was Arthur Kemp.
The Helots were originally free Messenian Greeks and other Greeks of the Peloponnese, but the Spartans conquered them and then and enslaved them. The Ancient Athenians even talk about their disgust with the Spartars for enslaving other Greeks.
Posts: 143 | From: The United States Of America (sadly) | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Right, but you know the spartans marched to the beat of their own drum. The athenians won in the end and created western civilization. I might say though that the Spartan ethic remained in europe as an aspect of it's culture. the Nazi's admired the Spartans and shared some of their values.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: Right, but you know the spartans marched to the beat of their own drum. The athenians won in the end and created western civilization. I might say though that the Spartan ethic remained in europe as an aspect of it's culture. the Nazi's admired the Spartans and shared some of their values.
Athens did not "create Western civilization." That statement is sheer nonsense.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
western civilization was created by the Greeks. Let me put it more simply for you....without the greeks western civilization as we know it would not exist.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
LOL! No Mr Patriot. Classical GREEK civilization was invented by the Greeks. Had nothing to do with "The West": America, Canada, Britain, Germany, Spain or France. It was a Greek civilization purely located in Greece and Turkey, which expanded EAST into Persia, Babylon and Northern India at its highest point. And the REASON they went East is because THAT is where civilization was MOST ancient and certainly that is also the reason they did NOT go WEST.
You keep talking about Greek and "Western" but you seem to forget that for most of the last 400 years Greece was ruled my MUSLIMS from Turkey and gave modern Greece most of its character which is UNLIKE ancient Greece. NON GREEKS like you are claiming Greece and building Greek architecture MORE THAN THE GREEKS. And before that Greece was dominated by the Romans and kept subject to them.
It is funny but your historical knowledge is so lacking that you don't even know that Greek Revivalism in Europe only came about since the 1830s. And with that came the wave of GREEK revival and Greek Mania, not ironically this is also the same time that Egyptomania became prevalent. Before that European art, architecture and culture had VERY LITTLE to do with Greece. It was more Romanesque, Moorish, Persian, Levantine, Turkish and Byzantine than GREEK. And this is why America is so full of Greek looking buildings and Egyptian symbolism. But that is only a FAKE connection between a culture and people that had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with either ancient Greece or Egypt. It is just a way to make the NEW country of America seem ancient, when it isn't. 240 years isn't ancient by any means.
quote: The Greek Revival was an architectural movement of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, predominantly in northern Europe and the United States. A product of Hellenism, it may be looked upon as the last phase in the development of Neoclassical architecture. The term was first used by Charles Robert Cockerell in a lecture he gave as Professor of Architecture to the Royal Academy in 1842.[1]
The term is indicative of how highly self-conscious practitioners of the style were, and that they realized they had created a new mode of architecture. With a newfound access to Greece, archaeologist-architects of the period studied the Doric and Ionic movement, examples of which can be found in Russia, Poland, Lithuania, and Finland (where the assembly of Greek buildings in Helsinki city centre is particularly notable). Yet in each country it touched, the style was looked on as the expression of local nationalism and civic virtue, especially in Germany and the United States where the idiom was regarded as being free from ecclesiastical and aristocratic associations.
The taste for all things Greek in furniture and interior design was at its peak by the beginning of the nineteenth century, when the designs of Thomas Hope had influenced a number of decorative styles known variously as Neoclassical, Empire, Russian Empire, and Regency. Greek Revival architecture took a different course in a number of countries, lasting up till the Civil War in America (1860s) and even later in Scotland. The style was also exported to Greece under the first two (German and Danish) kings of the newly independent nation. ... Rediscovery of Greece
Despite the unbounded prestige of ancient Greece amongst the educated elite of Europe, there was little to no direct knowledge of that civilization before the middle of the 18th century. The monuments of Greek antiquity were known chiefly from Pausanias and other literary sources. Visiting Ottoman Greece was difficult and dangerous business prior to the period of stagnation beginning with the Great Turkish War. Few Grand Tourists called on Athens during the first half of the 18th century, and none made any significant study of the architectural ruins.[2] It would take until the expedition funded by the Society of Dilettanti of 1751 by James Stuart and Nicholas Revett before serious archaeological enquiry began in earnest. Stuart and Revett's findings, published in 1762 (first volume) as The Antiquities of Athens, along with Julien-David Le Roy's Ruines des plus beaux monuments de la Grèce (1758) were the first accurate surveys of ancient Greek architecture.[3]
In fact Hellenism only came about in the 19th century, over 2000 years after the fall of Greece and primarily among the elite of NON GREEK people.
quote: Hellenism, as a neoclassical movement distinct from other Roman or Greco-Roman forms of neoclassicism emerging after the European Renaissance, is most often associated with Germany and England in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. In Germany, the preeminent figure in the movement was Johann Joachim Winckelmann, the art historian and aesthetic theoretician who first articulated what would come to be the orthodoxies of the Greek ideal in sculpture (though he only examined Roman copies of Greek statues, and was murdered before setting foot in Greece). For Winckelmann, the essence of Greek art was noble simplicity and sedate grandeur, often encapsulated in sculptures representing moments of intense emotion or tribulation. Other major figures include Hegel, Schlegel, Schelling and Schiller.
In England, the so-called "second generation" Romantic poets, especially John Keats, Percy Bysshe Shelley, and Lord Byron are considered exemplars of Hellenism. Drawing from Winckelmann (either directly or derivatively), these poets frequently turned to Greece as a model of ideal beauty, transcendent philosophy, democratic politics, and homosociality or homosexuality (for Shelley especially). Women poets, such as Mary Robinson, Felicia Hemans, Letitia Elizabeth Landon and Elizabeth Barrett Browning were also deeply involved in retelling the myths of classical Greece.[1]
In art and architecture, the Greek influence saw a zenith in the early nineteenth century, following from a Greek Revival that began with archaeological discoveries in the eighteenth century, and that changed the look of buildings, gardens and cemeteries (among other things) in England and continental Europe. This movement also inflected the worlds of fashion, interior design, furniture-making--even hairstyles. In painting and sculpture, no single event was more inspiring for the movement of Hellenism than the removal of the Parthenon Marbles from Greece to England by Lord Elgin. The English government purchased the Marbles from Elgin in 1816 and placed them in the British Museum, where they were seen by generations of English artists. Elgin's activities caused a controversy that continues to this day.[2]
posted
Doug, You are such a stupid man doug I would be shocked if you were able to tie your own shoes. I cannot teach you basic Western history if you do not know it by now.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: western civilization was created by the Greeks. Let me put it more simply for you....without the greeks western civilization as we know it would not exist.
Western civilization was not created by Greeks. Western civ is a mix of many different strands, including heavy influence from the Near East in thought (the Jewish/Hebrew contribution for example in religion), heavy influence from the Near East in terms of basic plants and animals that fed and drove that culture, technology from China and Asia (gunpowder, compass and printing from China, or advanced math concepts from Arabia, India and Persia), and heavy contributions made by so-called barbarian peoples like the Germanics.
Greeks are important, but they are only one strand among many. To say they "created" Western civilization is nonsensical. Western civ would not be what it is today without the Greeks, but it also would NOT be what it is today without the Hebrews, Egyptians, Chinese, Arabs, Germanics etc etc..
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Western civilization began in greece. the greeks hada fundamentally home grown society. The other places you mentioned had very little influence on the development of western civilization. This is basic 10th grade history. Holt, McDougal, glencoe, just to name a few, all make excellent textbooks pointing this out.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Here we go with the Aryan-model Lefkowitz theory again...
How about getting back to the topic that there is NO Mediterranean "race", and that Mediterranean Europeans are just mixed with Africans and Southwest Asians! How about that??
Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: well, the point is that this is all nonsense. You need to find something to worry about. AFRICA is a big contient and like all contients it varies from one part to the other. This is a pointless conversation. They may differ some but they are all AFRICANS.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: Western civilization began in greece. the greeks hada fundamentally home grown society. The other places you mentioned had very little influence on the development of western civilization. This is basic 10th grade history. Holt, McDougal, glencoe, just to name a few, all make excellent textbooks pointing this out.
Mr NON historian, the concept of "Western" civilization is only 200 years old. It came about due to Hellenism and the ideas of NON GREEK thinkers after Greece was liberated from the Ottomans in the 1800s. It is an attempt by NON GREEKS to make themselves part of something THEY HAD NOTHING to do with. It did not originate with Greek thinkers or writers. It originated with British, German, American and French thinkers who had NO CONNECTION to ancient Greece. The culture of these people was primarily influenced by Rome, Moorish Islam and the far East. There was no concept of "Western Civilization" during the dark or Middle Ages and nobody in Europe was trying to emulate Greece in those times. All of this glorification of Greece has only come about in the last 200 years by people UNCONNECTED to Greece in any shape or form. Most of European art, architecture and culture for the last 1000 years was NOT Greek inspired. The people who founded America were not emulating Greece, they were emulating ROME. It just so happened that the Revival of Greek architecture happened at a time when America was undergoing tremendous growth in the building of cities and therefore influenced many government buildings. Yet all of these buildings are LESS THAN 200 years old.
Mr Patriot America is built on myth and fantasy. 300 years ago there were no grand cities in America. There was no world trade center. There were no Manhattan skyscrapers. All of this only came about in the last 200 years. And 500 years ago, most Europeans did not know squat about Greece. The only part of Europe that had any connection to Greece and its intellectual heritage was the Byzantine Empire of which Greece was a part. But this was not in WESTERN Europe it was in EASTERN Europe, specifically between Greece and Turkey. WESTERN Europe was in the middle ages for most of this time between 400 and 1200 AD and during that time they had NO KNOWLEDGE of ancient Greek civilization, nor were they practicing it. In fact for most of European history in the last 1500 years, they have been focusing on ROME as the ideal to be emulated, not Greece.
Learn some history for a change Mr. Patriot.
From 200AD to 1000 AD Western Europe had no cities to speak of. All the major cities of Europe were in the South East: Spain, Italy, Greece and Turkey. Spain was under the Muslims and primarily introduced Persian, Babylonian and Egyptian culture to Europe, which would be the basis for the culture of the Middle Ages (kings, queens, castles and knights). NONE of that had ANY SEMBLANCE to ancient Greece NOR Rome. It was only after the Middle Ages and the interaction with Islamic society FROM THE EAST, along with the Renaissance that WESTERN Europeans became aware of the heritage of Greece and Rome. But they were not PART of that heritage and even then it was ROME that they primarily idealized as the vision of the "NEW HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE" of Europe and it was under this AEGIS that they set out to conquer the rest of the world. Then, as a result of the expansion of Europe and the fall of the Ottoman Empire which had taken over much of what was ancient Greece and the Byzantine Empire, did WESTERN Europe begin to identify itself with GREECE as "Western" civilization. And that is primarily only 300 years ago or so. Therefore America is primarily a result of the emulation of ROME via the HOLY ROMAN empire under Christianity and the Pope, not any sort of emulation of Greece.
Greece didn't DIE after the Roman conquest, it simply was absorbed into Rome and Persia. And then after that it became part of the Byzantine Empire, the Islamic Empire and the Ottoman Empire. Greek culture lived on and flourished LONG after ancient Greece had gone, but that was ONLY in the EAST, primarily in Turkey, Greece, the Eastern Mediterranean and Egypt. And for most of that time the East was synonymous with Islam. Greece was NEVER associated with "THe West" in any sense of the term. Western Europe was unaware of ANY OF Greece and unrelated to it until the 1500s and then the 1800s. Which just goes to show how BACKWARDS it is to look at Western Europe as the BASIS for ANYTHING concerning civilization or culture. To underscore this even further, the Greek Orthodox Church is part of EASTERN Orthodox Christianity, which is NOT part of the WESTERN Christian tradition. The EASTERN Catholic Church has the oldest traditions going back to Egypt and the Levant.
And throughout all of these times, the rise of Europe is PRIMARILY based on the absorption and influence of NON EUROPEAN culture and technology, from Indian numerals to Arabic chemistry to Asian horsemanship to African musical instruments to Native American plants and culture to Eskimo clothing and ancient Egyptian symbolism and so on. And it is this ADOPTION of NON EUROPEAN culture under the banner of "WESTERN" culture that epitomizes the modern heritage of the colonial offspring of Europe. Most of this does NOT come from Europe, but because of this identification with the EMPIRES of Greece and Rome, it has become a framework by which WESTERN Europeans have been able to ENRICH themselves off the cultures and ideas of other people.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:How about getting back to the topic that there is NO Mediterranean "race", and that Mediterranean Europeans are just mixed with Africans and Southwest Asians! How about that?? [/QB]
That's an interesting theory there, but if you think the Mediterranean phenotype is because of high prevalence of E3B and J lineages in Greeks (other people of the Balkans as well) and Italians....then why do the "swarthy" Iberians not carry these markers to any higher degree than Northern Europeans?
There is no such thing as 'race', let alone "Mediterranean" Hg J is Southwest Asian and E3b is African. Iberians also carry E3b as well as E3a and even E2. Southern Europe's mixed heritage is not surprising because it right across from Africa.
Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ It's NOT just a theory it's FACT.
There is no such thing as 'race', let alone "Mediterranean" Hg J is Southwest Asian and E3b is African. Iberians also carry E3b as well as E3a and even E2. Southern Europe's mixed heritage is not surprising because it right across from Africa.
countries in Europe that carry E3b and J to a higher level than Spain include
Belgium, Romania, Netherlands, Hungary, France, Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Ukraine.
quote: There is no such thing as 'race'
depends on how you define 'race'. One thing I know for sure is that there is population clusters, different phenotypes, genetic diversity, and so on.
Posts: 143 | From: The United States Of America (sadly) | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ There is no "depends". In science, definitions are always simple and straight forward. 'Race' by scientific definition is population phenotype isolate marked by specific genetic lineage. We know that genetic lineages do NOT bear a direct correlation with phenotype or looks and phenotypical features like skin color or facial features are NOT isolated to one population or another, therefore there is NO 'race'!
Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now Djehuti thinks he is an anthropologist. One the onle hand he obsessed by race, talks about nothing but race, race dominates his life from the time he gets up in the morning until he goes to bed at night. His blackness rules every thought he has. Then, he turns right around and denies that race exists. Go figure. The man is a nut.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know if this is meaningfull to the question of genetics but,we do know for a fact that Rome stationed Numidian horsemen in eastern europe during the Dacian wars.
Coalition forces: Chivalry of the Moors and of the Sarmatians
In addition to Romans and Dacians the reliefs show some other troops: on the Roman side the relief above (left) shows the chivalry of the Moors: the viewers were able to identify them by their frizzly (almost "rasta") hair and by the fact that they rode without saddle. In other episodes the Romans are helped by German warriors (almost naked and with moustaches) and by archers wearing an elaborate Oriental costume (most likely Parthians). The fact that we see on the Roman side representatives of their fiercest enemies may mean that Rome was at peace at that time, that the borders of the empire were secure and that the Dacian war had the support of the whole world. On the Dacian side the reliefs show the Sarmatian chivalry: both the warrior and the horse wear a protection made of flakes. It is interesting to note that immediately above the relief showing the arrival of the Sarmatians, we see the body of a dead Sarmatian chevalier. In this way the viewer immediately sees the end of the enemies of Rome. This "trick" is used also in other episodes showing the Dacians on the attack and, immediately above this scene, their dead bodies or their rout. The Sarmatians lived in the vast plains of southern Russia and Poland. romeartlover.tripod.com/Romanwar.html
And for GoldenAge of The Moors
Moorish Militarism
Page 45: According to Graham Webster, The discussion of Moorish militarism begins distinctly with the ancient martial conflicts between Rome and Carthage. Moorish soldiers are mentioned as early as the expedition to Sicily in 406 B.C., in a revolt by a certain Hanno (circa 350 B.C.) and the Roman invasion of Africa in 256 B.C. 46 They are similarly mentioned in Livy's account of the second Punic War ( 218-201 B.C. ) 47 In their bitter, prolonged and increasingly desperate struggle for national independence and control of the western Mediterranean, the Carthaginians utilized Moorish troops as integral elements in all of their battle campaigns. With the Numidians, the Moors fought on the side of the Carthaginians against the Romans. These redoubtable Moorish warriors greatly aided the Carthaginians, and were particularly beneficial to Hannibal Barca- the illustrious African general. Indeed, Hannibal, "who had over 6,000(Moors) at his disposal, suffered his only defeat when they were no longer available."
Page 47, Section 3: An original brass military diploma which dates from the middle of the second century A.D. mentions Moorish soldiers in Moesia, which is modern Serbia. Another military diploma of A.D. 158 speaks of Moorish soldiers from Africa in Dacia, or modern Rumania, and also of auxiliary troops of the Dacian Moors. A Roman document, Notitia Dignitatum, which dates from the beginning of the fifth century A.D., mentions several Moorish Battalions in the Balkans and the Moorish Military colony Ad Mauros which was located on the Inn River near Vienna; and in what is modern Besarabia, there was a city called Maurocastrum. According to the document Notitia Dignitatum, 2500 to 5000 Illyrian Moorish Soldiers, in five separate military units, had served in the Near East. From this document we must deduce that at the beginning of the fifty century at least 100,000 descendants of Moors lived in Illyricun, which was located in the present-day Balkans.
Page 187, Section 1: Pimienta Bey tells us: "I was a bit disappointed with Dr. Diop on his brief assessment of the Moors. For a man who so often analyzed words and their significance, Dr. Diop failed to address the etymology of the word "Moor." Wayne B. Chandler in his essay: "The Moor: Light of Europe 's Dark Age," informs us that the English word "Moor" originally comes from the Greek adjective "Mauros," which literally means "black" or very dark in color. The Romans would later adopt the word as a reference for the black-skinned inhabitants they encountered in Africa. Again, we recall that it was the ancient Romans who called the entire region of northwestern Africa Mauretania. Needless to say, this translates from the Latin as "the land of the black-skinned people".
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: Now Djehuti thinks he is an anthropologist. One the onle hand he obsessed by race, talks about nothing but race, race dominates his life from the time he gets up in the morning until he goes to bed at night. His blackness rules every thought he has. Then, he turns right around and denies that race exists. Go figure. The man is a nut.
LOL Sorry to burst you bubble but I don't think I'm an anthropologists because I'm NOT! Just because I know about basic concepts in anthropology does not mean I pursue a field in anthropology let alone thinking I'm an expert in that field!! And of course 'race' does NOT dominate my life and has NEVER! The only time I discuss 'race' is when the topic comes up and usually in this forum that's almost all the time from idiots like YOU! 'Blackness' certainly never dominates my life since I'm not even black, but even I know better to give credit where credit is due and black people have ALOT of credit due that racist idiots like you deny them, especially when it comes to ancient Egypt-- a black African civilization!
So enough of the nonsensical crap, 'professor'. Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Indeed. And your puropse which you have repeatedly stated on ES is to set the record straight and correct bias and misinterpretation in the handling of data on African peoples, such as that below. Other forum members are free do to the same.
A typical example of the need to set the record straight is seen in those who keep spamming Hammer, Poloni, Bosch and Cavalli-Sforza's studies from the early 1990s as the "last word" on African populations. But the structures of said studies are marked by sampling bias and selective categorization that does not give a balanced picture about various African populations.
-------------------- 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: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: the Greeks and romans were like northern europeans in that they are all european.
You are such a dumbass its not even funny...You bitch and whone about the African Egyptians but the Greeks and Nordics are the same...shut up
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Did not say Greeks and Nordics were the same. This is why you make terrible errors trying to educate yourself. Reading comprehension is a good thing. Greeks and Nordics are both europeans, they are both caucasians as are North Africans, including ancient Egyptians. A 1oth grade world or western civ textbook will cover all of this for you. I strongly recommend the Glencoe editions. You can find them on their web site.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Our Med and Nord members can explain it.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
[IMG]http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2629/3722048009_fd47bb8538.jpg?v=0 [/IMG] 
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic