Flemish and Dutch B&H/C18 members arrested

[Dutch Raven]

I don't know how wide-spread this news is, but several members of B&H and C18-like organisations from the Netherlands and Flanders were arested the past few days.

They were training at military bases and planned to do a coup in Flanders. They wanted to blow up the most important right-wing leader and muslim leader to create a civil war or something.

I'll try and translate some newsflashes later on.

[ienjoybeer]

I don't know how wide-spread this news is, but several members of B&H and C18-like organisations from the Netherlands and Flanders were arested the past few days.

They were training at military bases and planned to do a coup in Flanders. They wanted to blow up the most important right-wing leader and muslim leader to create a civil war or something.

I'll try and translate some newsflashes later on.


Shit...I didn't know it was international "have a coup week".....Thailand...and now you guys...

[Mike]

I don't know how wide-spread this news is, but several members of B&H and C18-like organisations from the Netherlands and Flanders were arested the past few days.

They were training at military bases and planned to do a coup in Flanders. They wanted to blow up the most important right-wing leader and muslim leader to create a civil war or something.

I'll try and translate some newsflashes later on.

link?

[live for nothing]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloed-Bodem-Eer_en_Trouw

[Blue Blood]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloed-Bodem-Eer_en_Trouw
Never,ever,use wikipedia for any reference,whatsoever.

[Dutch Raven]

Thanks, Live For Nothing.

[live for nothing]

Never,ever,use wikipedia for any reference,whatsoever.

why's that?

This article is reliable, believe me...

[weknowhowtolive]

Never,ever,use wikipedia for any reference,whatsoever.Why not? Just because its written by people doesnt mean its not true.

[terrormachine]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloed-Bodem-Eer_en_Trouw

Nice how Flanders has laws against being a racist or anti-semetic.....wonder if there's a law against hating Christians or native Europeans?
















Oh wait...there isn't....that wouldn't be politically correct.

[King of all Buffets]

What an elaborate plan, I have not seen the likes of which since I was in 6th grade and got two guys to fight each other by telling them both that the other one was trying to kiss their girlfriend. :biggrin:

[RuneDK]

I'd like to see the proof of their planned assasination of Phillip Dewinter... This sounds a bit like ZOG in action to me... but then again, Muslims and pro-immigration people have pushed the limit for soooo long, a counter attack is bound to happen at some point

[Chicagoskin]

I'd like to see the proof of their planned assasination of Phillip Dewinter... This sounds a bit like ZOG in action to me... but then again, Muslims and pro-immigration people have pushed the limit for soooo long, a counter attack is bound to happen at some point
oh yes, it's a conspiracy of the jews! sounds more to me like they got busted! of course if they succeeded you'd be saying how great the idea was... by the way, if there ever was some racial holy war, the right wing would lose, they have too much opposition from every other race, not to mention how many white people are against it. you guys are all fucked in the head.

[siobahn]

oh yes, it's a conspiracy of the jews! sounds more to me like they got busted! of course if they succeeded you'd be saying how great the idea was... by the way, if there ever was some racial holy war, the right wing would lose, they have too much opposition from every other race, not to mention how many white people are against it. you guys are all fucked in the head.ignoring the topic of this post and ..other things.., i just want to say that there's a huge difference when you're talking about europe vs. north america. in many european countries, it's not ridiculous at all to say 'poland for the poles' or 'sweden for the swedes' or whatnot.

[RuneDK]

oh yes, it's a conspiracy of the jews! sounds more to me like they got busted! of course if they succeeded you'd be saying how great the idea was... by the way, if there ever was some racial holy war, the right wing would lose, they have too much opposition from every other race, not to mention how many white people are against it. you guys are all fucked in the head.

I'm just saying i'd like to see the proof... and as siobahn said, there's a big difference between America and Europe. You're used to immigration and we're used to being one nation and one people. If a racial war was to start in Europe i'm confident that the white population would stick to their own kind instead of supporting arab terrorists. The "extreme" right-wing is getting more and more supporters around here and just to make it clear: i'm not looking for a world wide racial war. I just want my country as a place for my people to be free. Is 43,094 sq km too much to ask for? Sorry to hijack the thread.

[Chicagoskin]

i have no tolerance for muslim extremists, i don't like muslims period, that said, they're a religion and not a race... i still don't see how people jump to comclusions about jews secretly running the world and framing and keeping down the white man. it's rediculous.

[RuneDK]

i have no tolerance for muslim extremists, i don't like muslims period, that said, they're a religion and not a race... i still don't see how people jump to comclusions about jews secretly running the world and framing and keeping down the white man. it's rediculous.

Most of the "Danish" newspaper editors are jews. Leading figures in our banks and financial system are jews. EDIT: And we've only got like 0.001% jews in Denmark. Every time a nationalist movement is rising, then the jewish run media is calling them extremists and then it ends there. Only one political direction is possible at the moment. We've got alot of different parties, but because of the media only the "good" liberal ones will ever get good coverage.

As for the arabs - i want them out. Almost none of them has ever contributed to our society working. All they do is hurl rocks at police cars and fire trucks and whine about them not being able to build huge ass middle eastern mosques in every city. The Danish people were never asked if they wanted immigrants. Experimental politicians started a project they didn't knew how would end and now were stuck with terrorist supporters burning our flag.

But enough of that now.

[terrormachine]

it's rediculous.

Zionism certainly is REDiculous....

[Acari Rotter]

Judging by that article, these guys were into some serious shit. According to the article, they were engaged in arms dealing and planning terrorist attacks and a political assassination. Whether you don't like Arabs in your country or you think hate crime legislation is one-sided, that's just messed up.

This whole issue proves what I've been saying all along: we're not all that much superior to Muslims if we can't act any more civilised than them when we feel like we're under attack. These guys disgrace their country and civilisation as much as suicide bombers do.

Personally I'd rather be up to my elbows in Arabs than have people running around setting off bombs.

[Chicagoskin]

RuneDK... what i don't get either, is if the country is predominantly white, and has a white government, why does it need a pro-white group in the first place? they are the top dogs! why do you need to further exclude and distance non-whites? that's some bullshit. it's like tax cuts for the rich. racism will always disgust those with thinking minds and more importantly, exposure. i grew up around blacks and hispanics. i also lived in valporaiso indiana where in school i got treated like shit for being the ONE mexican kid in the neighborhood, that is some shit. did a 10 year old deserve shoddy treatmeant from schoolmates, teachers, the people working at the boys and girls club afterschool? what could i have possibly done to offend so many people? you tell me why being born white (wich is not your choice) makes you superior to me? and don't give me crime statistics, i'll tell you being in a neighborhood where jobs are scarce cause people are poor, and where drugs run rampant, it's easier to be a criminal than an honest john. chicago isn't easy to grow up in. also, if every other white person in the world was great, why should you be proud? the glory of what other people of your race accomplish, is on them and not you as an individual. i am not proud for what some mexican has achieved somewhere, i didn't earn their glory. without statistics saying poor minorities are criminals, tell me why being of lighter skin makes you superior to me? i'm dying to know...

[militarymite]

I don't know how wide-spread this news is, but several members of B&H and C18-like organisations from the Netherlands and Flanders were arested the past few days.

They were training at military bases and planned to do a coup in Flanders. They wanted to blow up the most important right-wing leader and muslim leader to create a civil war or something.

I'll try and translate some newsflashes later on.
I keep coming across articles here and there that the US military is actively recruiting Nazi skinheads because of their willingness to fight, partriotism, physical fitness, ect. The people that write these articles fear that with the technical level of military training they recieve, they may come back and join a Nazi group with the intent to mount something like a coup in this country.

[LastRites]

I keep coming across articles here and there that the US military is actively recruiting Nazi skinheads because of their willingness to fight, partriotism, physical fitness, ect. The people that write these articles fear that with the technical level of military training they recieve, they may come back and join a Nazi group with the intent to mount something like a coup in this country.
Oh no... the US military is not far away with its rules than the Candian one. Restrictions and regulations are more and more stricter when it comes to recruitment of anyone being suspected of any activity related to racism in any form. Tattoo restriction is a fine example.

[LastRites]

RuneDK... what i don't get either, is if the country is predominantly white, and has a white government, why does it need a pro-white group in the first place?
To preserve. Because they see the increase of people of different cultures in their own country who get "special" treatment and are untouchable simply due to their status.

i grew up around blacks and hispanics. i also lived in valporaiso indiana where in school i got treated like shit for being the ONE mexican kid in the neighborhood, that is some shit. did a 10 year old deserve shoddy treatmeant from schoolmates, teachers, the people working at the boys and girls club afterschool? what could i have possibly done to offend so many people? you tell me why being born white (wich is not your choice) makes you superior to me?
Nobody says anyting about superiority. Its simply that people wish to be left alone in their country without any outside influence in its inner cultural policies. You may see this differently not living in Europe.

tell me why being of lighter skin makes you superior to me? i'm dying to know...
Again...nothing to do with superiority. Picture some random dude walking into your home even though he has his own...and re-arranging your furniture to his liking. And pushing for laws preventing you from saying something about it. Some people value their home...aka their country more than others. It doesnt make them wrong.

[Acari Rotter]

Wow, it's all so much simpler now. It makes sense. This isn't about violence or racial superiority. Well, except for the whole plotting a terrorist attack part. Otherwise I'm right with you.

[Chicagoskin]

Some people value their home...aka their country more than others. It doesnt make them wrong.
and that justifies hate crimes? of course though if i go and pop some white dude i'm just another sterroypical white hating minority who needs to shot in the name of the white race huh?

[Chicagoskin]

also, the irish, dutch ect... have different cultures, why is it more acceptable for them to live together? cause they look more alike? i am not pushing mexican anything on anyone, i'm proud to call my self an american, why then should i be denied the right to live somewhere cause a bunch of white guys came and killed off the people here and claimed it?

[live for nothing]

They aren’t denied to live here…
Muslims refuse to integrate, they want to force their culture upon Western Europe…. They hate their guest lands and it’s culture, yet they take advantage of all the benefits it has to offer…
I don’t think you can compare Western European immigrants (in another Western European country) with Turkish, Northern African,… immigrants.
It’s like Last Rites said, it’s not about blind racism or superiority, but about wanting to ‘preserve’ our own traditions and lifestyle…

[Chicagoskin]

They aren’t denied to live here…
Muslims refuse to integrate, they want to force their culture upon Western Europe…. They hate their guest lands and it’s culture, yet they take advantage of all the benefits it has to offer…
I don’t think you can compare Western European immigrants (in another Western European country) with Turkish, Northern African,… immigrants.
It’s like Last Rites said, it’s not about blind racism or superiority, but about wanting to ‘preserve’ our own traditions and lifestyle…
but you are basically saying that the whitest people are ok, even though they have different traditions. and how are you gonna compare turks and africans with muslims? MUSLIMS are a crazed religion, not race. not even all arabs are muslim. you guys just try to pretty up your shit. but it still stinks, like i said, people with exposure will see you for what you are.

[LastRites]

and that justifies hate crimes? of course though if i go and pop some white dude i'm just another sterroypical white hating minority who needs to shot in the name of the white race huh?
No it doesnt justify a hate crime...what it does justify is violence to ANY group of people not part of their nation that intefere with their national issues/traditions regardless of color and religion. Gotta understand that these so called pro-white groups are nationalistic FIRST. Be it the Dutch or the English that were doing this in Sweden...it be the same scenario.
You people are way too narrow minded to understand that these groups look after their own people first and call themselves pro-white (using white as European) because even though they are different cultures, all want the same thing. So if numerous groups have the same goal...and a comon enemy...they might as well fly under the same banner and use terms that unify them such as "white" or "European".

[live for nothing]

but you are basically saying that the whitest people are ok, even though they have different traditions. and how are you gonna compare turks and africans with muslims? MUSLIMS are a crazed religion, not race. not even all arabs are muslim. you guys just try to pretty up your shit. but it still stinks, like i said, people with exposure will see you for what you are.

dude, 95% of turkey, northern africa, the middle east,.. IS muslim...
They can have their traditions, I don't care, they just shouldn't force their ways upon us... We let them stay here, offer everything they need, but they don't even show the slightest form of respect... So standing up against that make us bad?? And whites forcing their culture upon others is just as bad...
But how much do French, Dutch, German, English, Belgian... differ? not that much I think...

Immigration in Europe is a different thing than immigration in the states...

[LastRites]

but you are basically saying that the whitest people are ok, even though they have different traditions.
No different than Blacks use the term "African" even though they are from different tribes and parts of that continent.

[Tokyohoon]

They aren’t denied to live here…
Muslims refuse to integrate, they want to force their culture upon Western Europe…. They hate their guest lands and it’s culture, yet they take advantage of all the benefits it has to offer…
I don’t think you can compare Western European immigrants (in another Western European country) with Turkish, Northern African,… immigrants.
It’s like Last Rites said, it’s not about blind racism or superiority, but about wanting to ‘preserve’ our own traditions and lifestyle…

Well excuse me, you blind fuck, but two of my best friends in Tokyo are from Tunisia, and they fit in just fine around here. Stop throwing around the generalisations - there ARE some immigrants who are problematic, and then there is the majority, who are not. Just the same as there are SOME Belgians from the Flanders region who are narrow minded tunnel visioned short sighted assholes, and then there are the majority, who are not.

[ienjoybeer]

Well excuse me, you blind fuck, but two of my best friends in Tokyo are from Tunisia, and they fit in just fine around here. Stop throwing around the generalisations - there ARE some immigrants who are problematic, and then there is the majority, who are not. Just the same as there are SOME Belgians from the Flanders region who are narrow minded tunnel visioned short sighted assholes, and then there are the majority, who are not.


I agree that people can integrate into foreign culture...and that's good. I think what the others are talking about is cultural preservation, and not so much racism in itself.
Don't get me wrong, I hate racist ideologies as much as the next person...but, I also believe that people should respect others' culture while they are in someone else's country. I don't think in many cases that the political muslim population in many european countries do not respect those boundaries. And, remember now too, that depending on whether they are sunni or shia or an extremist of either kind ...they believe that either a) the 12th imam is going to come and turn everybody into a muslim on his own, and they are waiting for that day or b) they have to start a holy war to evoke this dude so he can vanquish the non-believers and create a unified muslim world or c) he's already come and gone...he got lost in the 10th century.
Some of these people WANT to convert everyone to islam.....it's a big goal. And, a lot of the lobbying muslims in other countries aren't just lobbying for equal rights and equal treatment....but, are indeed imposing their religiosity on a culture that's not about it. Imposition of religious laws and shit aren't right.....
But, then again neither is bashing muslims....it's a thin line between cultural preservation, which I don't think people are doing enough of.....say....in Japan for instance, and racism. I had a friend in from Japan not too long ago. He lives in a traditional city 2 hours outside of Tokyo...but, he said that western culture has virtually destroyed the Japanese way of life in larger places...and it's spreading to small towns like his.... Of course, that's his opinion.
I'm just saying...cultural preservation is important...but, It does not make racism acceptable.

[grouchybastid]

No it doesnt justify a hate crime...what it does justify is violence to ANY group of people not part of their nation that intefere with their national issues/traditions regardless of color and religion. Gotta understand that these so called pro-white groups are nationalistic FIRST. Be it the Dutch or the English that were doing this in Sweden...it be the same scenario.
You people are way too narrow minded to understand that these groups look after their own people first and call themselves pro-white (using white as European) because even though they are different cultures, all want the same thing. So if numerous groups have the same goal...and a comon enemy...they might as well fly under the same banner and use terms that unify them such as "white" or "European".

Wait, you're saying 'white' is equivalent with 'European'? So by that logic, people of Spanish descent are white. So are Italians, Sicilians and Greeks.

[King of all Buffets]

Wait, you're saying 'white' is equivalent with 'European'? So by that logic, people of Spanish descent are white. So are Italians, Sicilians and Greeks.

Most spainards, greeks, Italians and sicilians consider themselves white.

[grouchybastid]

Most spainards, greeks, Italians and sicilians consider themselves white.

Some pretty swarthy motherfuckers to be called white. I'm half Spanish, I'm doubting many WPers would consider me white.

So extending the logic, all central and south american Hispanics, as well as Caribbean Hispanics, are half-white?

[weknowhowtolive]

Some pretty swarthy motherfuckers to be called white. I'm half Spanish, I'm doubting many WPers would consider me white.

So extending the logic, all central and south american Hispanics, as well as Caribbean Hispanics, are half-white?Actually some of the more "public" drama in some of the WP groups, that ive heard of, has had to do with "spanish" people. "He's white, he's spanish." i heard that a lot for awhile...i think it was wit hthe whole panzerfaust shit.

[grouchybastid]

Actually some of the more "public" drama in some of the WP groups, that ive heard of, has had to do with "spanish" people. "He's white, he's spanish." i heard that a lot for awhile...i think it was wit hthe whole panzerfaust shit.

Well yeah. The whole concept of race is flawed and pointless, especially in modern society.

[Acari Rotter]

But, then again neither is bashing muslims....it's a thin line between cultural preservation, which I don't think people are doing enough of.....say....in Japan for instance, and racism. I had a friend in from Japan not too long ago. He lives in a traditional city 2 hours outside of Tokyo...but, he said that western culture has virtually destroyed the Japanese way of life in larger places...and it's spreading to small towns like his.... Of course, that's his opinion.

Well the Japanese destroyed a lot of other people's ways of life, so boo hoo to him.

The strange thing about these white power gangs is that they seem to spend a lot of their energy targeting people from their own race who disagree with them. So are they protecting their own race or merely being closed-minded cowards?

[LastRites]

Wait, you're saying 'white' is equivalent with 'European'? So by that logic, people of Spanish descent are white. So are Italians, Sicilians and Greeks.
Dont tell me youre serious? You did good in the "evolution" thread...but you got no game here.
Original Italians, Spaniards, Greeks are 100% European and 100% Caucasian. Many but not all Mediterraneans are mixed with non-Caucasian races. And youre confusing the term Spaniard with the term Hispanic. Both are completely different. While the first one is an ethnic definition...Hispanic is a linguistic/territorial one. Different ehtnic groups can be described as Hispanic...unlike the Spaniard.

[King of all Buffets]

Dont tell me youre serious? You did good in the "evolution" thread...but you got no game here.
Original Italians, Spaniards, Greeks are 100% European and 100% Caucasian. Many but not all Mediterraneans are mixed with non-Caucasian races. And youre confusing the term Spaniard with the term Hispanic. Both are completely different. While the first one is an ethnic definition...Hispanic is a linguistic/territorial one. Different ehtnic groups can be described as Hispanic...unlike the Spaniard.

I always read that Maltese are not white but "mixed-race caucasian"...I never understood what this means.....Do you?....c'mon lastrites my cultural identity hangs in the balence.:biggrin:

[grouchybastid]

Dont tell me youre serious? You did good in the "evolution" thread...but you got no game here.
Original Italians, Spaniards, Greeks are 100% European and 100% Caucasian. Many but not all Mediterraneans are mixed with non-Caucasian races. And youre confusing the term Spaniard with the term Hispanic. Both are completely different. While the first one is an ethnic definition...Hispanic is a linguistic/territorial one. Different ehtnic groups can be described as Hispanic...unlike the Spaniard.

Heh. By 'did good' I assume you mean 'shut you down'. :biggrin:

OK, there's a mixing of terms there. Are you talking about race, or ethnicity?

You're saying that Spaniards cannot be considered Hispanic? Where are you getting that one from?

"Original" Italians, etc? How far back are you going now? A thousand years? 5,000?

I stand by my assertion that the concept of race is flawed, useless and quite honestly, stupid and divisive.

[LastRites]

I always read that Maltese are not white but "mixed-race caucasian"...I never understood what this means.....Do you?....c'mon lastrites my cultural identity hangs in the balence.:biggrin:
Can be either/or. If the original ancestors of Malta were a branch off of one of the Caucasian type, which they are, then they would most def. fit the same cetegory. Now, Maltese just like the Spanish, Italian,etc. populations have been affected by another race. It all depends on the % of the population affected by this. We know that not all of the population has gone the same process and some remained in its original form aka caucasian. The typical stereotype of an Italian for example, is black hair and brown eyes...because its very common. We must understand that not all of the original Italian population fits this category as some pockets of populations remained untouched or to a degree by a different race. So someone can still have blond hair and blue eyes in Italy.

[LastRites]

Heh. By 'did good' I assume you mean 'shut you down'. :biggrin:
I admit defeat. It was a great battle though...one on three. Hehehe.

OK, there's a mixing of terms there. Are you talking about race, or ethnicity?
Both. While a person from Mexico and a person from Spain are two different ethnicities, they are different races as well. While a person from Spain and a person from Portugal are different ethnicities, they can be of the same race.

You're saying that Spaniards cannot be considered Hispanic? Where are you getting that one from?
Thats not what Im saying.
All Spaniards can be called Hispanics....but not all Hispanics can be called Spaniards.


I stand by my assertion that the concept of race is flawed, useless and quite honestly, stupid and divisive.
It is a concept no different from evolution.

[grouchybastid]

Both. While a person from Mexico and a person from Spain are two different ethnicities, they are different races as well. While a person from Spain and a person from Portugal are different ethnicities, they can be of the same race.

Uh huh. I guess the first thing to do is, define what you mean by race. Just for shits and giggles, how many races are there? (I'll even be nice and tell you right off the bat, that is a trick question)


Thats not what Im saying.
All Spaniards can be called Hispanics....but not all Hispanics can be called Spaniards.

Name me one "Hispanic" culture that doesn't descend partially from Spaniards.


It is a concept no different from evolution.

OK, you lost me entirely. The concept of race is no different from the science of evolution?

[LastRites]

Uh huh. I guess the first thing to do is, define what you mean by race. Just for shits and giggles, how many races are there? (I'll even be nice and tell you right off the bat, that is a trick question)
Species...then sub-spiecies..then races...and then broken down into sub-races.
Most will divide race (not sub-race) into 5 major groups. Caucasoid, Congoid, Capoid, Mongoloid and Australoid. But people to this day argue, some say its more and with todays mixing, I woudlnt be suprised if another types emerged in the last number of years.

Name me one "Hispanic" culture that doesn't descend partially from Spaniards.
They all do.

[grouchybastid]

Species...then sub-spiecies..then races...and then broken down into sub-races.
Most will divide race (not sub-race) into 5 major groups. Caucasoid, Congoid, Capoid, Mongoloid and Australoid. But people to this day argue, some say its more and with todays mixing, I woudlnt be suprised if another types emerged in the last number of years.

Hence it being a trick question. There is nothing even close to consensus on this in the anthropological field, nor the biological field. Again, illustrating that the concept of race is meaningless.

But there are no sub-species of humanity. We're all H. Sapiens...one big happy family.



You left an awful lot of my questions unanswered there.....

[King of all Buffets]

Can be either/or. If the original ancestors of Malta were a branch off of one of the Caucasian type, which they are, then they would most def. fit the same cetegory. Now, Maltese just like the Spanish, Italian,etc. populations have been affected by another race. It all depends on the % of the population affected by this. We know that not all of the population has gone the same process and some remained in its original form aka caucasian. The typical stereotype of an Italian for example, is black hair and brown eyes...because its very common. We must understand that not all of the original Italian population fits this category as some pockets of populations remained untouched or to a degree by a different race. So someone can still have blond hair and blue eyes in Italy.

I think with the maltese its reversed.....the orginal Maltese came from Syria and Lebannon and have been lightened over the years by intermixing under the romans and more recently under british colonial rule..... I do see your point though

[LastRites]

But there are no sub-species of humanity. We're all H. Sapiens...one big happy family.
No but there were at one point. And I think that's where many WP folks will argue that these sub-species still exist and are classified by race.


You left an awful lot of my questions unanswered there.....
Only one...because I fucking lost myself there too. hahahaha.

[siobahn]

we're not all that much superior to Muslims if we can't act any more civilised than them when we feel like we're under attack. These guys disgrace their country and civilisation as much as suicide bombers do.and they make up.. what percentage of the population? people who want to bomb government or other targets here have.. how much public support? show me where our culture glorifies sending kids into crowds of people with explosives strapped to their chest, or shows overwhelming support for the killing of innocents such as what happened on 9/11. how can one example be used to judge a culture and society as a whole?

what a fucking ridiculous statement.

racism will always disgust those with thinking minds and more importantly, exposure. i grew up around blacks and hispanics.bullshit. so did i.

also, the irish, dutch ect... have different cultures, why is it more acceptable for them to live together?their cultures are more similar. history is full of examples of people with similar, but different, cultures going to war... but at this point in time, the idea is that those who share the most similarities should stick together to keep their homeland from becoming something entirely different.

not even all arabs are muslim.no, but non-muslim arabs are more likely to support the goals/interests of muslims than say, you or me. their culture is dependent on islam, the same way my culture (as descendent from eastern europe) is based on catholicism.. even more so (more likely to be so) because of the extent to which their religion is part of society in all of their native countries.


bah.. i've gotta get out of here. more later if LR didn't cover all of it. :tongue:

[grouchybastid]

No but there were at one point. And I think that's where many WP folks will argue that these sub-species still exist and are classified by race.

Hmm..no there weren't. H. sapiens and H. neanderthalensis aren't widely considered to be subspecies, but rather two distinct species. Parallel evolutionary branches, in effect.

And I'm not talking to "many" WP folks...I'm talking to you. You, after all, have disputed my assertion of the pointlessness of race as applied to humanity.


This is another question you didn't answer:

"Original" Italians, etc? How far back are you going now? A thousand years? 5,000?

At what point were/are human races "pure"? Do you see where this line of argument will inevitably lead?

[winecityskin]

Dont tell me youre serious? You did good in the "evolution" thread...but you got no game here.
Original Italians, Spaniards, Greeks are 100% European and 100% Caucasian. Many but not all Mediterraneans are mixed with non-Caucasian races. And youre confusing the term Spaniard with the term Hispanic. Both are completely different. While the first one is an ethnic definition...Hispanic is a linguistic/territorial one. Different ehtnic groups can be described as Hispanic...unlike the Spaniard.

Ok, just for the records, I'm sicilian(well, 50%) and consider myself 100% white. If you don't believe me, look at my pic, my skin's whiter than some Germans I know, and this summer some woman asked me if I spoke Italian, she thought I was northern European or something like that.
Secondly, hair and eye color varies in about any European country, the fact that in southern Europe a lot of people tend to have a darker complexion is mostly derived by the climate. It's true that some people have VERY dark complections, and that has probably to do with the Moor invasions and occupations in the middle ages, but that's not as common as you think.

Spaniards: people coming from the Iberian peninsula
Hispanics: Basically anyone from South America who has had at least one white person in its genealogy.

[live for nothing]

Well excuse me, you blind fuck, but two of my best friends in Tokyo are from Tunisia, and they fit in just fine around here. Stop throwing around the generalisations - there ARE some immigrants who are problematic, and then there is the majority, who are not. Just the same as there are SOME Belgians from the Flanders region who are narrow minded tunnel visioned short sighted assholes, and then there are the majority, who are not.

Ok, so because 2 of your friends fit in well, only SOME Muslim immigrants are problematic and the majority are not…? That’s just as much a generalisation as my statement…
And how are you going to judge what’s the situation like in Flanders/Belgium/Europe? You live in Japan for god’s sake! I face it every single day, and they dislike our culture and the people hosting them. The majority does not fit in, and they aren’t even trying.
How the hell is imported religious fundamentalism constructive within our nations? It took us ages to get rid of the Christian oppression, and now we should be happy to see it replaced by an Islamic one? They are bringing our western world and it’s achievements down from within, and more and more people are standing up against it. Hence the rise of the right wing in Europe. And there aren’t just some what you call “narrow minded tunnel visioned short sighted assholes”, there are a lot. The majority is just scared to speak out in the name of political correctness and the anti-racist laws we have over here.

[london callum]

Well excuse me, you blind fuck, but two of my best friends in Tokyo are from Tunisia, and they fit in just fine around here. Stop throwing around the generalisations - there ARE some immigrants who are problematic, and then there is the majority, who are not. Just the same as there are SOME Belgians from the Flanders region who are narrow minded tunnel visioned short sighted assholes, and then there are the majority, who are not.



Hoon, there are some over here who fit in perfectly and I am quite happy to be mates with. However the majority of them don't try to fit in. They speak arabic or whatever instead of English, they only talk to other muslims and not any English people. Alot of people say all asians here are like that but it is not true. Hindus for example assimilate well and so does the sikh community. But the muslim community on the whole does not.

[LastRites]

Hmm..no there weren't. H. sapiens and H. neanderthalensis aren't widely considered to be subspecies, but rather two distinct species. Parallel evolutionary branches, in effect.
What is Idaltu for 500 Alex.

At what point were/are human races "pure"? Do you see where this line of argument will inevitably lead?
I guess we can take this back as far as the ancient Italians in the pre-Roman domination times. Such thing as a pure race is very rare these days...however that is not the argument. What should be looked at is the sub-races of the ancient Indo-European people which still no matter what, fall in the "white people" category. 90% of the ancient Italians could be described as such...today this % is way lower.

[LastRites]

Ok, just for the records, I'm sicilian(well, 50%) and consider myself 100% white. If you don't believe me, look at my pic, my skin's whiter than some Germans I know, and this summer some woman asked me if I spoke Italian, she thought I was northern European or something like that.
Secondly, hair and eye color varies in about any European country, the fact that in southern Europe a lot of people tend to have a darker complexion is mostly derived by the climate. It's true that some people have VERY dark complections, and that has probably to do with the Moor invasions and occupations in the middle ages, but that's not as common as you think. white person in its genealogy.
True but race is not only a visible trait in my opinion. Albinos are whiter than me, it doesnt make them the same as myself.

[winecityskin]

True but race is not only a visible trait in my opinion. Albinos are whiter than me, it doesnt make them the same as myself.

You deleted a part of my comment, filthy revisionist:mad:


Har har har...

[grouchybastid]

What is Idaltu for 500 Alex.

A predecessor of modern man that died out 160,000 years ago. What's your point? The jury is still out whether they're a sub-species or not.


I guess we can take this back as far as the ancient Italians in the pre-Roman domination times. Such thing as a pure race is very rare these days...however that is not the argument. What should be looked at is the sub-races of the ancient Indo-European people which still no matter what, fall in the "white people" category. 90% of the ancient Italians could be described as such...today this % is way lower.

Bzzt! Sorry, try again. "Indo-European" has nothing to do with ethnicity or culture, it's proper usage has to do with language groups. Now, if you start looking at the peoples that use languages in the Indo-European group, guess who you find? Hindi speaking people, and Iranians. White? Not even close.

Let's try something, just for fun. Without any dodging or ambiguity, why don't you simply state what your specific argument/belief is in this case? That way, we can just discuss the issue.

[LastRites]

A predecessor of modern man that died out 160,000 years ago. What's your point? The jury is still out whether they're a sub-species or not.
Point is...there were considered or it is debated that they were a sub-species of Homo Sapiens.

Bzzt! Sorry, try again. "Indo-European" has nothing to do with ethnicity or culture, it's proper usage has to do with language groups. Now, if you start looking at the peoples that use languages in the Indo-European group, guess who you find? Hindi speaking people, and Iranians. White? Not even close.
Although youre right...youre still missing important details. Indo-European means the exact same thing as Aryan. Its a linguistic classification of people. However...it sums up ALL Indo-Europeans into this category. What we gotta look at is the migration of Indo-Europeans and how they differentiate culturally and ethnicically east to west, north to south. People who migrated to the lands of todays Italy are most definetaly not Hindi. Their difference was ethnical and cultural from the people in the west. Although they share a common a linguistic, maybe even a cultural and ethnical ancestor it doesnt mean they are the same. Same would go for any people...of ANY culture of today that at one time shared the same ancestor. Remember the talk we had about "migrations" and "mutations"? The thing we gotta keep in mind here is how far do we go with the word "ancestor".

Let's try something, just for fun. Without any dodging or ambiguity, why don't you simply state what your specific argument/belief is in this case? That way, we can just discuss the issue.
How many threads/posts are we going to create that are titled "what does LastRites believe in"? I already stated once...many times actually that I am not a racist. I see cultural differences between people and I believe that culture is one of the most important factors in human life. Culture and Tradition is what helps a nation to invent, progress and morally evolve. Because of it, it makes you and I, Joe and Bob, Belgium and China different. And culture no matter how you look at it, is a product of race. So we can sum up all of European culture under one main race meaning Caucasian/white or numerous sub-races meaning Nordic, Slavic, etc. Im fine with one or the other.

[Dutch Raven]

Ok, just for the records, I'm sicilian(well, 50%) and consider myself 100% white. If you don't believe me, look at my pic, my skin's whiter than some Germans I know, and this summer some woman asked me if I spoke Italian, she thought I was northern European or something like that.
Secondly, hair and eye color varies in about any European country, the fact that in southern Europe a lot of people tend to have a darker complexion is mostly derived by the climate. It's true that some people have VERY dark complections, and that has probably to do with the Moor invasions and occupations in the middle ages, but that's not as common as you think.

Spaniards: people coming from the Iberian peninsula
Hispanics: Basically anyone from South America who has had at least one white person in its genealogy.

You wish! South-European people used to be blonde. Getting darker had nothing to do with climate.

[Doc]

Ok, just for the records, I'm sicilian(well, 50%) and consider myself 100% white. If you don't believe me, look at my pic, my skin's whiter than some Germans I know, and this summer some woman asked me if I spoke Italian, she thought I was northern European or something like that.
Secondly, hair and eye color varies in about any European country, the fact that in southern Europe a lot of people tend to have a darker complexion is mostly derived by the climate. It's true that some people have VERY dark complections, and that has probably to do with the Moor invasions and occupations in the middle ages, but that's not as common as you think.

Spaniards: people coming from the Iberian peninsula
Hispanics: Basically anyone from South America who has had at least one white person in its genealogy.


Climate? No:
"It's a fact. Sicilians have ****** blood pumpin' through their hearts. If you don't believe me, look it up. You see, hundreds and hundreds of years ago the Moors conquered Sicily. And Moors are ******s. Way back then, Sicilians were like the wops in northern Italy. Blond hair, blue eyes. But, once the Moors moved in there, they changed the whole country. They did so much fuckin' with the Sicilian women, they changed the blood-line for ever, from blond hair and blue eyes to black hair and dark skin. I find it absolutely amazing to think that to this day, hundreds of years later, Sicilians still carry that ****** gene. I'm just quotin' history. It's a fact. It's written. Your ancestors were ******s. Your great, great, great, great, great-grandmother was fucked by a ******, and had a half-****** kid. That is a fact. Now tell me, am I lyin'?"

[Chicago Red]

Yes and many people claim that we were never on the moon and that the world is flat...many people argue butwhat are your facts that allegedly prove that there are sub-species in man?

No but there were at one point. And I think that's where many WP folks will argue that these sub-species still exist and are classified by race.


Only one...because I fucking lost myself there too. hahahaha.

[Dutch Raven]

Doc, LastRites, what theorie do you like:

Men originates from Africa and spread globally.

Or (my favourite):
Men originated in various places in the world and spread globally.

[Chicago Red]

I always like the ones that are based in reality...

Doc, LastRites, what theorie do you like:

Men originates from Africa and spread globally.

Or (my favourite):
Men originated in various places in the world and spread globally.

[LastRites]

I always like the ones that are based in reality...
Which is......?

[Chicago Red]

Unless you have some logical facts that I have never seen before...it would be the former and not Dutch Raven's "favorite one"

Which is......?

[Dutch Raven]

Unless you have some logical facts that I have never seen before...it would be the former and not Dutch Raven's "favorite one"

It's a plausible theory, prefered by lots of scientists.

[Chicago Red]

Just out of curiosity...what scientists are those?

It's a plausible theory, prefered by lots of scientists.

[Dutch Raven]

Just out of curiosity...what scientists are those?

Dr Mengele.

[grouchybastid]

Although youre right...youre still missing important details. Indo-European means the exact same thing as Aryan. Its a linguistic classification of people. However...it sums up ALL Indo-Europeans into this category. What we gotta look at is the migration of Indo-Europeans and how they differentiate culturally and ethnicically east to west, north to south. People who migrated to the lands of todays Italy are most definetaly not Hindi. Their difference was ethnical and cultural from the people in the west. Although they share a common a linguistic, maybe even a cultural and ethnical ancestor it doesnt mean they are the same. Same would go for any people...of ANY culture of today that at one time shared the same ancestor. Remember the talk we had about "migrations" and "mutations"? The thing we gotta keep in mind here is how far do we go with the word "ancestor".

Honestly, I fail to see any valid point or argument being made here. You admit I'm right, but then keep referring to Indo-Europeans as ethnic groups.

Indo-European being synonymous with Aryan? That idea was popular in the early part of the 20th century. In fact, you seem stuck on several ideas that were shot down a century ago. You may want to start reading books written in more modern times. Next thing you know, you'll be coming out with the idea that the Aryan people are decendents of Atlantis. The people that called THEMSELVES Aryan are Persian.

The question about how far back we go with the word ancestor is what I've been trying to bring up a couple of times. You chose an arbitrary time period and region, for what purpose exactly? My point there is, if you keep going back, you find more and more that all peoples converge. In other words, every group of humanity shares common ancestry with every other group of humanity.


How many threads/posts are we going to create that are titled "what does LastRites believe in"? I already stated once...many times actually that I am not a racist. I see cultural differences between people and I believe that culture is one of the most important factors in human life. Culture and Tradition is what helps a nation to invent, progress and morally evolve. Because of it, it makes you and I, Joe and Bob, Belgium and China different. And culture no matter how you look at it, is a product of race. So we can sum up all of European culture under one main race meaning Caucasian/white or numerous sub-races meaning Nordic, Slavic, etc. Im fine with one or the other.

Maybe people keep asking because you keep weaseling. :smile: You state you're not a racist, but you keep asking about the ideas of genetic differences leading to superiority.

However, I was more asking in the context of this thread/discussion. What is the point you're trying to get across/get people to admit is valid?

"Culture....is a product of race" No. Culture is a product of environment and region, but also of politics and religion and language.

[grouchybastid]

Doc, LastRites, what theorie do you like:

Men originates from Africa and spread globally.

Or (my favourite):
Men originated in various places in the world and spread globally.

What am I, chopped liver?

Read up on mitochondrial DNA studies. It shows strong evidence for the prevailing theory in human biology/paleontology, that being arising in Africa and spreading in many waves over long periods of time to the rest of the world. There's evidence to support the idea that the vast majority of Europeans are decended (matrilineal decent, that is) from 7 women, 150,000 years ago. Give or take.


Just out of curiosity...what scientists are those?Dr Mengele.

Please tell me you're fucking kidding.

[Chicago Red]

"Mathematicians claimed that everyone living on Earth is descended from a common ancestor who lived as few as two thousand years ago."

-- Harper's Magazine /September 2006

[Dutch Raven]

Please tell me you're fucking kidding.

No: he's my hero.

Of course I'm kidding! ;)

[LastRites]

Honestly, I fail to see any valid point or argument being made here. You admit I'm right, but then keep referring to Indo-Europeans as ethnic groups.

Indo-European being synonymous with Aryan? That idea was popular in the early part of the 20th century. In fact, you seem stuck on several ideas that were shot down a century ago. You may want to start reading books written in more modern times. Next thing you know, you'll be coming out with the idea that the Aryan people are decendents of Atlantis. The people that called THEMSELVES Aryan are Persian.

Im reading the right books. I think you refuse to read books that are controversial in the mainstream view and are either hard to get or classfied as racist and banned. Youre were right only when you categorized "Indo-European" as a language family but you failed to recognize that this family is made up of different ethnicities. Even though its not a term to describe a particullar types of people...it can clearly be used to descible certain types(plural) of people. Different types of people which then branched off this family into different directions and formed new types or people or ethnicities. Thats where the Indo-European tribe split...thats where different although some closely related cultures arose and made them entirely different. Culturally, linguistic and ethnic. Thats where many people called as "racists" have an opinion that this was the time period which made one culture more advanced than the other...its porduct aka culture is what made them "superior" not in a biological way...but in a cultural/civilization way.


The question about how far back we go with the word ancestor is what I've been trying to bring up a couple of times. You chose an arbitrary time period and region, for what purpose exactly? My point there is, if you keep going back, you find more and more that all peoples converge. In other words, every group of humanity shares common ancestry with every other group of humanity.
Possible. But we should go only as far as the creation of civilization in that area takes us. There is no need to go back to times of cavemen...but the people that populated the area, build cities and empires. A clear example of an advanced strong and superior society when compared to the rest.


Maybe people keep asking because you keep weaseling. :smile: You state you're not a racist, but you keep asking about the ideas of genetic differences leading to superiority.
Never asked...just trying to get something clear. If you read my first post in the "evolution of man" thread I clearly ask for the bell curve or racial superiority not to be mentioned.

However, I was more asking in the context of this thread/discussion. What is the point you're trying to get across/get people to admit is valid?
The point that people refuse to believe amd/or read about. That we are different and these differences were the creators of civilization or lack of. That homogenous societies were better, far more advanced and stronger than mixed ones. And that one dominated the other.

"Culture....is a product of race" No. Culture is a product of environment and region, but also of politics and religion and language.
Culture #1 is a product of enviroment, region, politics and language.
Culture #2 is a product of enviroment, region, politics and language.
Culture #3 is a product of enviroment, region, politics and language.
...can we say that many races hold membership to one of them. Or each culture is striclty assigned to a partucllar group of people which can be racially categorized? Today we can...but can we say the same thing when western civilization was born...or when Rome was born...or even the Aztecs? The answer is no...because once homogenity was not a factor...each society faded away.

[Chicago Red]

But then you are choosing times to look at randomly and without any reason or logic which reduces your argument to faith and not fact...for instance, why would you not want to go back to the period of the "caveman" not an accurate description of human or hominids during that period. It is my understanding that there were "superior" civilizations during the period of the so-called "caveman."

However, I come back to my original point...where are the facts to show that the very small statistical variance within the human species has any significant impact on the development cultural and civilization?

Resources, geography, environment and language development have way more significant reprecussions.

Im reading the right books. I think you refuse to read books that are controversial in the mainstream view and are either hard to get or classfied as racist and banned. Youre were right only when you categorized "Indo-European" as a language family but you failed to recognize that this family is made up of different ethnicities. Even though its not a term to describe a particullar types of people...it can clearly be used to descible certain types(plural) of people. Different types of people which then branched off this family into different directions and formed new types or people or ethnicities. Thats where the Indo-European tribe split...thats where different although some closely related cultures arose and made them entirely different. Culturally, linguistic and ethnic. Thats where many people called as "racists" have an opinion that this was the time period which made one culture more advanced than the other...its porduct aka culture is what made them "superior" not in a biological way...but in a cultural/civilization way.


Possible. But we should go only as far as the creation of civilization in that area takes us. There is no need to go back to times of cavemen...but the people that populated the area, build cities and empires. A clear example of an advanced strong and superior society when compared to the rest.


Never asked...just trying to get something clear. If you read my first post in the "evolution of man" thread I clearly ask for the bell curve or racial superiority not to be mentioned.

The point that people refuse to believe amd/or read about. That we are different and these differences were the creators of civilization or lack of. That homogenous societies were better, far more advanced and stronger than mixed ones. And that one dominated the other.

Culture #1 is a product of enviroment, region, politics and language.
Culture #2 is a product of enviroment, region, politics and language.
Culture #3 is a product of enviroment, region, politics and language.
...can we say that many races hold membership to one of them. Or each culture is striclty assigned to a partucllar group of people which can be racially categorized? Today we can...but can we say the same thing when western civilization was born...or when Rome was born...or even the Aztecs? The answer is no...because once homogenity was not a factor...each society faded away.

[King of all Buffets]

As soon as i saw "sub-species" being thrown around, i knew this thread was no longer worth reading.

[grouchybastid]

Im reading the right books. I think you refuse to read books that are controversial in the mainstream view and are either hard to get or classfied as racist and banned. Youre were right only when you categorized "Indo-European" as a language family but you failed to recognize that this family is made up of different ethnicities. Even though its not a term to describe a particullar types of people...it can clearly be used to descible certain types(plural) of people. Different types of people which then branched off this family into different directions and formed new types or people or ethnicities. Thats where the Indo-European tribe split...thats where different although some closely related cultures arose and made them entirely different. Culturally, linguistic and ethnic. Thats where many people called as "racists" have an opinion that this was the time period which made one culture more advanced than the other...its porduct aka culture is what made them "superior" not in a biological way...but in a cultural/civilization way.

Controversy is fine, questioning the mainstream is one of the lynchpins of science. However, the second a theory starts talking about divisive bullshit like ethnic/racial/cultural superiority, you are 100% correct, I will put that shit down. Do you want to know why? Because a) there's no basis of fact to any of it b) it leaves people of mixed ancestry (like, oh, ME) in the lurch as "inferior" and c) it's meaningless in light of ongoing human development. Humanity needs advancement, not retardation. Ideas of race, and of ethnic isolation and/or purity, are antiquated and doomed to failure. The sooner people get their heads wrapped around that, the better off we'll all be.



Possible. But we should go only as far as the creation of civilization in that area takes us. There is no need to go back to times of cavemen...but the people that populated the area, build cities and empires. A clear example of an advanced strong and superior society when compared to the rest.

That is a rather convenient dodge, isn't it? "We don't need to go back far enough to make the idea invalid." Again, arbitrary date and location on your part, chosen carefully to bolster your argument.


Never asked...just trying to get something clear. If you read my first post in the "evolution of man" thread I clearly ask for the bell curve or racial superiority not to be mentioned.

New thread, new discussion, new rules.


The point that people refuse to believe amd/or read about. That we are different and these differences were the creators of civilization or lack of. That homogenous societies were better, far more advanced and stronger than mixed ones. And that one dominated the other.

Again, superiority is an incredibly subjective call, and has no place in objective science. And yes, anthropology is a science.

Where are you coming up with the idea that human differences led to the creation of civilization? Name me a civilization that never became "strong" or "advanced" due to the fact that they weren't up to par with another civilization. Or even better, read a book called "Guns, Germs and Steel" and learn why you're wrong.


Culture #1 is a product of enviroment, region, politics and language.
Culture #2 is a product of enviroment, region, politics and language.
Culture #3 is a product of enviroment, region, politics and language.
...can we say that many races hold membership to one of them. Or each culture is striclty assigned to a partucllar group of people which can be racially categorized? Today we can...but can we say the same thing when western civilization was born...or when Rome was born...or even the Aztecs? The answer is no...because once homogenity was not a factor...each society faded away.

Where was Western civilization born exactly? Who 'created' it? Are you claiming that the Roman Empire was ethnically homogenous? (hint, it wasn't) The Aztec Empire was destroyed by outside influences, but internally it was again hardly homogenous.

[grouchybastid]

As soon as i saw "sub-species" being thrown around, i knew this thread was no longer worth reading.

Hey, my posts are always worth reading! :smile:

[loridk]

Bravo boys! Interesting read.

...at least until the very end when you lost me.

[LastRites]

Controversy is fine, questioning the mainstream is one of the lynchpins of science. However, the second a theory starts talking about divisive bullshit like ethnic/racial/cultural superiority, you are 100% correct, I will put that shit down. Do you want to know why? Because a) there's no basis of fact to any of it b) it leaves people of mixed ancestry (like, oh, ME) in the lurch as "inferior" and c) it's meaningless in light of ongoing human development. Humanity needs advancement, not retardation. Ideas of race, and of ethnic isolation and/or purity, are antiquated and doomed to failure. The sooner people get their heads wrapped around that, the better off we'll all be.
Not very scientific of you if you ignore other ideas presented in books that are not in todays fashion. You should read about a subject from all different angles not just from one. Books which promote ehtnic/racial/cultural superiority may not be 100% correct...but many of them are also not fully disproved. Authors arent given a chance to present their ideas...they are quickly silenced and dismissed as hate mongers. Look at Darwin and what he and his books went through...how many years before we decided to look at it again and found some truth in it? Give it a shot. And its not about you being "inferior" as you put it but at the same time...truth in this world is not always as wonderful and fair as todays PC promoters tell us.


That is a rather convenient dodge, isn't it? "We don't need to go back far enough to make the idea invalid." Again, arbitrary date and location on your part, chosen carefully to bolster your argument.
Alright then....lets look at the first wave of migrations to that area at end of the Neolithic and the second wave at the Chalcolithic period. Does that answer it?


New thread, new discussion, new rules.
Hang on a sec here. You said that Im asking about genetic differences which lead to superiority....where? Can you point it out to me? I dont think I did....cultural superiority? - yes. Because if civilization is a product of culture or synonymous with it...and its obvious that one civliization is superior to another...where does that leave culture? Can you disprove it?


Again, superiority is an incredibly subjective call, and has no place in objective science. And yes, anthropology is a science.
Anthropology is science of course, no argument there. But objective science presents evolution AND alternatives. It ignores that these alternatives may be unscientific (meaning not familiar with scientific methods). Remember that no science can produce absolute truth.


Where are you coming up with the idea that human differences led to the creation of civilization? Name me a civilization that never became "strong" or "advanced" due to the fact that they weren't up to par with another civilization. Or even better, read a book called "Guns, Germs and Steel" and learn why you're wrong.
What is a civilization? A complex, almost tribal society. One civilization can culturally dominate another. Thats nothing new. If civlization is a product or almost synonymous with culture...and since culture is a "way of life" of a certain people...where does that leave us with different people with different cultures in this world since not all of them have accomplished such task? (as there is proof of more and less advanced societies)
We can discuss cultural and social anthropology here too. It will have many references to "racism"...which many people like do dismiss it as false wihtout even looking at it...such as yourself which you have pointed out earlier in your post.


Where was Western civilization born exactly? Who 'created' it? Are you claiming that the Roman Empire was ethnically homogenous? (hint, it wasn't) The Aztec Empire was destroyed by outside influences, but internally it was again hardly homogenous.
I cannot pin point the birth of western civliization, never tried.

The Roman Empire sure wasnt ethnically homogenous if you look at it as a whole not its beginning. As we discussed earlier about a given time periods of Indo-Europeans setteling there, the Roman empire was born by one group of people pushing out another group of poeple who were linguistic and culturally different. They could possibly be sharing a common ancestor but it is still unknown, I tend to believe that these people were the first wave of Indo-Europeans migrating to those areas...and then the so called "Romans" showed up and begun living side by side...and eventually dominating them...so they were related in some way or at least had a common ancestor. Anyways...the Roman Empire born by one a group of people who shared a common culture which was different from the other people. They were homogenous because...monoculturalism is why empires, nations were born...only after this was not a factor anymore, did the Empire like any other begun its descent. Of course this wasnt the only factor but in my opinoin the most important one. Religion, politics are secondary to me when discussing culture.


Youre right, the Aztecs sure have been destroyed by outside influences, besides disease...its other main reason was a more dominant culture/civlization. And do you have any proof that the Aztec civilization was not homogenous?

[LastRites]

But then you are choosing times to look at randomly and without any reason or logic which reduces your argument to faith and not fact...for instance, why would you not want to go back to the period of the "caveman" not an accurate description of human or hominids during that period. It is my understanding that there were "superior" civilizations during the period of the so-called "caveman."
Id be happy go discuss cultural differences at the beginning of stone age to today. I dont pick random times, I just dont believe that throwing dates here and there will make my posts any more valid or convincing. In fact when people throw dates and other numbers around, they tend to be reading straight from a book which I do not do. Dates should be only discussed when talking political history in my opinion.
And just which "superior civilizations" during the so called "cavemen" period are you speaking of? Can you shine some light on this for me?

However, I come back to my original point...where are the facts to show that the very small statistical variance within the human species has any significant impact on the development cultural and civilization?

Good question. Migration could be one factor considered. If people had to migrate, think of ways to survive, innovate ideas and thus becoming different culturally along with racially due to enviroment(as some say)...is there anything that can disprove the argument that both of the underlined factors do not work with or are dependant on eachother when talking in terms of civilization?

[Doc]

I'm gonna give my 2 cents here about the evolution of culture.
Perhaps it is fair to say that conventional evolutionary explanations, such as kin selection and reciprocal altruism (a good turn will earn you one back) work well for small-scale societies like those found among groups of monkeys and apes. I am going to say that they do not work quite as well on the larger scale of human societies, because kinship and interaction frequencies are just too dilute in large group to sustain indiscriminate altruism (acting for the good of all, not just those who carry your genes). When an individuals reproductive success is tied in with the problems of survival of a large and essentially faceless group, something is needed to prevent tension or conflict between self and group-level interests, otherwise, the very fabric that holds the group together will tear apart. There needs to be something that ensures committment to that group. That something is culture - it creates a strong sense of group identity and individual conformity. So perhaps then, culture has evolved due to the multilevel selection pressures that act on very large groups.
As for differences in culture, well, it probably has to do with differences in desired societal goals, and differences in the natural resources available to the group.

[Chicago Red]

Sumer is a country in southeastern Mesopotamia, and birthplace for the first "superior" civilization in world history. The history of Sumer is counted as lasting from about 3500 BCE until 2000 BCE. It is the first civilization that the scientific community points too...however, I for one do not hold to the belief that being advanced in the technological sphere is always the best qualifier for a "superior civilization." I think that goals and desires of that civilization should also be measured. Also, to be clear..."caveman" is not an accurate description and I think that the historical description of their time is both misleading and insulting....it is as inaccurate and hurtful as old Tarzan film descriptions of Africa.

To respond to your other question...can you define what you mean when you refer to race and culture.


Id be happy go discuss cultural differences at the beginning of stone age to today. I dont pick random times, I just dont believe that throwing dates here and there will make my posts any more valid or convincing. In fact when people throw dates and other numbers around, they tend to be reading straight from a book which I do not do. Dates should be only discussed when talking political history in my opinion.
And just which "superior civilizations" during the so called "cavemen" period are you speaking of? Can you shine some light on this for me?

Good question. Migration could be one factor considered. If people had to migrate, think of ways to survive, innovate ideas and thus becoming different culturally along with racially due to enviroment(as some say)...is there anything that can disprove the argument that both of the underlined factors do not work with or are dependant on eachother when talking in terms of civilization?

[grouchybastid]

Not very scientific of you if you ignore other ideas presented in books that are not in todays fashion. You should read about a subject from all different angles not just from one. Books which promote ehtnic/racial/cultural superiority may not be 100% correct...but many of them are also not fully disproved. Authors arent given a chance to present their ideas...they are quickly silenced and dismissed as hate mongers. Look at Darwin and what he and his books went through...how many years before we decided to look at it again and found some truth in it? Give it a shot. And its not about you being "inferior" as you put it but at the same time...truth in this world is not always as wonderful and fair as todays PC promoters tell us.

Please. You're telling me what I need to read? Give me one good reason why a book on racial superiority is worth my time. Wait, on second thought don't bother. There are no reasons why any of that shit is worth my time. You're claiming it's not about anybody being inferior? If any one group of people is considered a superior group, then every other group is inferior. Definition of the term. Additionally, yeah this shit does get personal because if one of the tenets of group superiority is that members of the group must remain "pure", and I (like many, many millions in the world today) are anything but. I go back two generations and I've got ancestry from 4 different countries.

Knocking racism and racist ideas isn't about political correctness. It's about recognizing the sheer idiocy of the concept, and discarding it so that people can move on.

Darwin's books, pretty laughable you'd try to equate a landmark work in science to some bullshit ideas that have no verifiable basis in fact. Darwin didn't publish Origin of Species for something like 20 years because he wanted to make sure he got it right.



Alright then....lets look at the first wave of migrations to that area at end of the Neolithic and the second wave at the Chalcolithic period. Does that answer it?

Answer what?


Hang on a sec here. You said that Im asking about genetic differences which lead to superiority....where? Can you point it out to me? I dont think I did....cultural superiority? - yes. Because if civilization is a product of culture or synonymous with it...and its obvious that one civliization is superior to another...where does that leave culture? Can you disprove it?

Obvious to whom? I will state again, that there is no place for the concept of superiority in scientific study and observation. Civilizations may be more successful than others if you look at select criteria, that doesn't equate to superior.


Anthropology is science of course, no argument there. But objective science presents evolution AND alternatives. It ignores that these alternatives may be unscientific (meaning not familiar with scientific methods). Remember that no science can produce absolute truth.

Claiming that a so-called race of people is superior to any other sounds a whole lot like trying to state an absolute truth. Replace "race of people" in the above statement with culture, or civilization, or ethnicity and you get the same thing. You're right, science cannot produce absolute truth...it doesn't try to. It simply presents data and formulates theories around that data. It takes ignorance to decide that any of that data supports racism, or cultural superiority or whatever term you prefer to use.


What is a civilization? A complex, almost tribal society. One civilization can culturally dominate another. Thats nothing new. If civlization is a product or almost synonymous with culture...and since culture is a "way of life" of a certain people...where does that leave us with different people with different cultures in this world since not all of them have accomplished such task? (as there is proof of more and less advanced societies)
We can discuss cultural and social anthropology here too. It will have many references to "racism"...which many people like do dismiss it as false wihtout even looking at it...such as yourself which you have pointed out earlier in your post.

OK seriously, none of this makes any sense. There's no coherent argument here.


The Roman Empire sure wasnt ethnically homogenous if you look at it as a whole not its beginning. As we discussed earlier about a given time periods of Indo-Europeans setteling there, the Roman empire was born by one group of people pushing out another group of poeple who were linguistic and culturally different. They could possibly be sharing a common ancestor but it is still unknown, I tend to believe that these people were the first wave of Indo-Europeans migrating to those areas...and then the so called "Romans" showed up and begun living side by side...and eventually dominating them...so they were related in some way or at least had a common ancestor. Anyways...the Roman Empire born by one a group of people who shared a common culture which was different from the other people. They were homogenous because...monoculturalism is why empires, nations were born...only after this was not a factor anymore, did the Empire like any other begun its descent. Of course this wasnt the only factor but in my opinoin the most important one. Religion, politics are secondary to me when discussing culture.

That right there is a big part of the problem. You can believe all you want, but that doesn't make it so, or have anything to back it up.

Anyhow, at the height of the Roman Empire, it was far from homogenous. Look at the geography for pity's sake! They had spread literally the length and breadth of Europe, and all cultures within that group were part of the Empire. That's basically what defines an empire. Political and economic factors brought the Roman Empire down, not the fact that it was no longer ethnically or culturally pure. It was never a monoculture while it was an empire, the two terms are a contradiction.


Youre right, the Aztecs sure have been destroyed by outside influences, besides disease...its other main reason was a more dominant culture/civlization. And do you have any proof that the Aztec civilization was not homogenous?

By definition, an empire is a collection of disparate groups of people. In the case of the Aztecs, it was all the tribes in the area that they wound up controlling. So yeah, the Aztec Empire was not culturally homogenous. Same for the Roman Empire...or the Greeks before them.

Here you go, you want proof of the heterogenous make-up of the Aztecs? Read the first paragraph: http://www.houstonculture.org/mexico/aztecs.html

[LastRites]

Im not going to answer some of your points because I'll be repeating what I will be writing later on.

Darwin's books, pretty laughable you'd try to equate a landmark work in science to some bullshit ideas that have no verifiable basis in fact. Darwin didn't publish Origin of Species for something like 20 years because he wanted to make sure he got it right.
Youre trying to prove me wrong by saying the exact same thing as me except using a bit more detail? Even Orgin of Species was laughable during its publishing days. Point is...people didnt take him seriously at first and dismissed his works as propaganda. Hell...some still do it today. No different than what we do to non politically correct authors of today today. Sometimes even worse, we jail them for what we consider their scientific work as a hatecrime. True some of these authors are not correct in the head but we cannot push away their ideas without examining them first.


Answer what?
You wanted me to give you speciffic dates of these migrations of populations, here they are.


Obvious to whom? I will state again, that there is no place for the concept of superiority in scientific study and observation. Civilizations may be more successful than others if you look at select criteria, that doesn't equate to superior.
Dont say Im wrong over and over again, prove me wrong. Prove that some civilizations were not superior to others. Dont just pick one factor such as population or mathematics....an overall look at the whole civilization and compare it to another. We might as well try using the same time periods to make it more interesting.


Claiming that a so-called race of people is superior to any other sounds a whole lot like trying to state an absolute truth. Replace "race of people" in the above statement with culture, or civilization, or ethnicity and you get the same thing. You're right, science cannot produce absolute truth...it doesn't try to. It simply presents data and formulates theories around that data. It takes ignorance to decide that any of that data supports racism, or cultural superiority or whatever term you prefer to use.
Claiming cultural or even racial superiority is one of the theories based on the data scientists have collected. Except its quickly dismissed without further study. It is not an absolute truth, its a theory that is not given a chance to be looked into as its not accepted into what our modern culture wants us to be/think. I dont believe in racial superiority but cultural. And in my opinion culture is a structure that holds together a group of people which share same racial characteristics. They may or may not create civilizations, depending on their needs, population, enviroment, etc. They may also work with other cultures to form civilizations but as history proves, one culture is dominant and controlls others thus forming a complex society under which all cultures follow the rules of the dominant one. This may or may not form a new culture. Cultural evolution.

OK seriously, none of this makes any sense. There's no coherent argument here.
Dont say Im wrong, prove me wrong. Not because I want to piss you off but becasue apperently Im wrong...and I want to think right.


That right there is a big part of the problem. You can believe all you want, but that doesn't make it so, or have anything to back it up.
Same as above...if Im wrong...convince me.


Anyhow, at the height of the Roman Empire, it was far from homogenous. Look at the geography for pity's sake! They had spread literally the length and breadth of Europe, and all cultures within that group were part of the Empire. That's basically what defines an empire. Political and economic factors brought the Roman Empire down, not the fact that it was no longer ethnically or culturally pure. It was never a monoculture while it was an empire, the two terms are a contradiction.
Youre confusing Roman Empire with early Roman history which was homogenous. I already stated that the looking at the Roman Empire as a whole wasnt. But its beginning or things that paved a path for it to become as powerful fit in nicely with my theory. History books have also shown that why the Empire begun and rose to power was exact the same reason why it fell...even encyclopedias will use the term of "racial suicde".


By definition, an empire is a collection of disparate groups of people. In the case of the Aztecs, it was all the tribes in the area that they wound up controlling. So yeah, the Aztec Empire was not culturally homogenous. Same for the Roman Empire...or the Greeks before them.

Here you go, you want proof of the heterogenous make-up of the Aztecs? Read the first paragraph: http://www.houstonculture.org/mexico/aztecs.html
"The Aztecs where the most powerful Mesoamerican kingdom of all time." Although the link you gave says it was made up of multi-ethnic and multi-cultural factors...the term Mesoamerican is characterized by the particular cultural homogeneity that the indigenous cultures in this region exhibit.
The linke states "multi-ethnic and "multi-cultural"...whats gotta be understood that these terms are to describe people who are closely related in terms of language and genetics. Mesoamerica is a cultural area meaning a region of homogenous human activity or complex of activities... in short "culture". And in the example of Aztecs...it was a culture more dominant than others.

[LastRites]

Sumer is a country in southeastern Mesopotamia, and birthplace for the first "superior" civilization in world history. The history of Sumer is counted as lasting from about 3500 BCE until 2000 BCE. It is the first civilization that the scientific community points too...however, I for one do not hold to the belief that being advanced in the technological sphere is always the best qualifier for a "superior civilization." I think that goals and desires of that civilization should also be measured. Also, to be clear..."caveman" is not an accurate description and I think that the historical description of their time is both misleading and insulting....it is as inaccurate and hurtful as old Tarzan film descriptions of Africa.
Sumer was not the first superior civilization but believed to be first civlization period. Studies show that they have come to that stage through social organization. Some anthoropologists point that many of these factors which contributed to this social organization such as farming for example, came from the north. The Sumerian language has been adapted into the Indo-European language category. So many theories point that people who build Sumer migrated there. Whether this place was already resided by other populations is unknown to me but after looking up this subject it says that the people of Sumer had a language which was unintuitive to the Semitic speakers there. So in my opinion, one group of people migrated and dominated another. They lived side by side but one language/culture was clearly dominant for whatever reason. It had a higher ranking therefore superior not on a comparing level but to eachother.

To respond to your other question...can you define what you mean when you refer to race and culture.
Strictly in terms of sociocultural evolution.

[grouchybastid]

Youre trying to prove me wrong by saying the exact same thing as me except using a bit more detail? Even Orgin of Species was laughable during its publishing days. Point is...people didnt take him seriously at first and dismissed his works as propaganda. Hell...some still do it today. No different than what we do to non politically correct authors of today today. Sometimes even worse, we jail them for what we consider their scientific work as a hatecrime. True some of these authors are not correct in the head but we cannot push away their ideas without examining them first.

Here's the primary difference. Darwin thought out and heavily researched his ideas before publishing them, and they were a new concept in science. Racial/ethnic superiority is not new, nor is it science. It's an idea that is constantly thrown around by people who, for whatever reason, feel the need to be superior to other people. There is no accepted science behind racism, and never will be.

Another reason to dismiss these ideas is that which stems from them. Any group of people that decides it is superior to another has historically used that idea as a bludgeon. "They are inferior, therefore they can be enslaved" "They are inferior, therefore they can be slaughtered" "They are inferior, therefore they can be forced to abandon their own culture to adopt ours"


You wanted me to give you speciffic dates of these migrations of populations, here they are.

And my point was, picking any date or date range to "prove" that a group is ethnically or racially distinct from any other is flawed, because if you keep going back in time, groups converge.


Dont say Im wrong over and over again, prove me wrong. Prove that some civilizations were not superior to others. Dont just pick one factor such as population or mathematics....an overall look at the whole civilization and compare it to another. We might as well try using the same time periods to make it more interesting.

Sorry, doesn't work that way. Burden of proof is on the proponent of the theory. I can theorize that under the right conditions I can shit gold. It's not up to you to prove me wrong.

In a less flippant sense, I will restate that science is objective, and superiority is inherently subjective and so has no place in it. A biologist will never turn around and say that a top predator is superior to it's prey, or even superior to a lesser predator.


Claiming cultural or even racial superiority is one of the theories based on the data scientists have collected. Except its quickly dismissed without further study. It is not an absolute truth, its a theory that is not given a chance to be looked into as its not accepted into what our modern culture wants us to be/think. I dont believe in racial superiority but cultural. And in my opinion culture is a structure that holds together a group of people which share same racial characteristics. They may or may not create civilizations, depending on their needs, population, enviroment, etc. They may also work with other cultures to form civilizations but as history proves, one culture is dominant and controlls others thus forming a complex society under which all cultures follow the rules of the dominant one. This may or may not form a new culture. Cultural evolution.

You can call a donkey an eagle, but that doesn't mean it'll make him fly. The highlighted sentences say it all right there. You believe in the superiority of the social structure that different races create..but that's not racism. :rolleyes:

Which culture would be the superior one in the world then? And more importantly, why?


Dont say Im wrong, prove me wrong. Not because I want to piss you off but becasue apperently Im wrong...and I want to think right.

Honestly, I don't think you do. You have this idea stuck in your head and want to find things that boost the idea. It's an antiquated, backwards way of thinking...that should be reason enough to let it go.


Youre confusing Roman Empire with early Roman history which was homogenous. I already stated that the looking at the Roman Empire as a whole wasnt. But its beginning or things that paved a path for it to become as powerful fit in nicely with my theory. History books have also shown that why the Empire begun and rose to power was exact the same reason why it fell...even encyclopedias will use the term of "racial suicde".

"The Aztecs where the most powerful Mesoamerican kingdom of all time." Although the link you gave says it was made up of multi-ethnic and multi-cultural factors...the term Mesoamerican is characterized by the particular cultural homogeneity that the indigenous cultures in this region exhibit.
The linke states "multi-ethnic and "multi-cultural"...whats gotta be understood that these terms are to describe people who are closely related in terms of language and genetics. Mesoamerica is a cultural area meaning a region of homogenous human activity or complex of activities... in short "culture". And in the example of Aztecs...it was a culture more dominant than others.

I'll say it again, dominant does not equal superior.

[LastRites]

And my point was, picking any date or date range to "prove" that a group is ethnically or racially distinct from any other is flawed, because if you keep going back in time, groups converge.
Sure...groups move. Thats why its important in my opinion to look into these migrations of populations during different periods of time and look into the rises of civilizations and why they were able to do things others werent. Why some were succesful and others not, etc. Compare and discuss them in terms of cultural evolution, in hopes of trying to find the full explanation not only how but also why this world is this way and not another way.


Here's the primary difference. Darwin thought out and heavily researched his ideas before publishing them, and they were a new concept in science. Racial/ethnic superiority is not new, nor is it science. It's an idea that is constantly thrown around by people who, for whatever reason, feel the need to be superior to other people. There is no accepted science behind racism, and never will be.

Another reason to dismiss these ideas is that which stems from them. Any group of people that decides it is superior to another has historically used that idea as a bludgeon. "They are inferior, therefore they can be enslaved" "They are inferior, therefore they can be slaughtered" "They are inferior, therefore they can be forced to abandon their own culture to adopt ours"

Sorry, doesn't work that way. Burden of proof is on the proponent of the theory. I can theorize that under the right conditions I can shit gold. It's not up to you to prove me wrong.

In a less flippant sense, I will restate that science is objective, and superiority is inherently subjective and so has no place in it. A biologist will never turn around and say that a top predator is superior to it's prey, or even superior to a lesser predator.

You can call a donkey an eagle, but that doesn't mean it'll make him fly. The highlighted sentences say it all right there. You believe in the superiority of the social structure that different races create..but that's not racism. :rolleyes:

Which culture would be the superior one in the world then? And more importantly, why?

Honestly, I don't think you do. You have this idea stuck in your head and want to find things that boost the idea. It's an antiquated, backwards way of thinking...that should be reason enough to let it go.

I'll say it again, dominant does not equal superior.

It all boils down to you having a full explanation, the absolute truth and me knowing nothing and being ignorant then? I dont think so.
The more philosophical issues associated with evolutionary theory such as teleology, ethics, the relation of evolutionary naturalisms to the claim of religious traditions, teh relation of humans to the rest of animate kingdom receive no single solution from evolutionary science. We can argue all we want in the "objective" sense...but in the end you have no beginning and no end, only an explanation of what is known/seen... a figure or an illustration. Objective science for example also cannot tell us when all possible natural explanations have been exhausted. Data collected through science so far tells us how....not why. I for one am also a believer in conscious evolution. The belief that: a process of giving direction to the evolution of human systems by purposeful action and/or a process by which we can individually and collectively take responsibility for our future. And in such topics I use "culture". Even Darwin based his theory of artificial selection, in which who gets to breed is by act of concious reason.
While you are forcing yourself to believe that natural selection is strictly in terms of pure random chance, I believe that one affects the other and vice versa. Does this make any sense to you?

[grouchybastid]

It all boils down to you having a full explanation, the absolute truth and me knowing nothing and being ignorant then? I dont think so.

I have never, nor will I ever, claim knowledge of absolute truth. Probably because I don't think such a thing exists, but that's a whole 'nother discussion.


The more philosophical issues associated with evolutionary theory such as teleology, ethics, the relation of evolutionary naturalisms to the claim of religious traditions, teh relation of humans to the rest of animate kingdom receive no single solution from evolutionary science. We can argue all we want in the "objective" sense...but in the end you have no beginning and no end, only an explanation of what is known/seen... a figure or an illustration. Objective science for example also cannot tell us when all possible natural explanations have been exhausted. Data collected through science so far tells us how....not why. I for one am also a believer in conscious evolution. The belief that: a process of giving direction to the evolution of human systems by purposeful action and/or a process by which we can individually and collectively take responsibility for our future. And in such topics I use "culture". Even Darwin based his theory of artificial selection, in which who gets to breed is by act of concious reason.
While you are forcing yourself to believe that natural selection is strictly in terms of pure random chance, I believe that one affects the other and vice versa. Does this make any sense to you?

No.

I'm not sure how natural selection and Darwinian evolution snuck in here, but I'll say again you can believe anything you like, that doesn't mean it's supportable. Evolution on the genetic level is random. Natural selection has no pattern or aim, so in a sense it's random as well. Traits get selected for because they work just enough. The best possible trait doesn't necessarily get selected above all else, what gets selected is what works well enough for the species to survive.

Back on topic, we were talking about ethnic/racial superiority and you have managed to once again dodge the question. What ethnicity/race/culture is superior, and why? What supports that?

[Acari Rotter]

and they make up.. what percentage of the population? people who want to bomb government or other targets here have.. how much public support? show me where our culture glorifies sending kids into crowds of people with explosives strapped to their chest, or shows overwhelming support for the killing of innocents such as what happened on 9/11. how can one example be used to judge a culture and society as a whole?

what a fucking ridiculous statement.


Luckily not all white people are judged based on the actions of a few extremists. But we should separate ourselves from these fanatics by delivering harsh and swift justice. As I think I said, white power groups like this are afraid their cultures are under siege, which is exactly what Muslim terrorist groups think. I think we can be better than that, by not resorting to terrorist plans and racial violence. Going down to that level is just dishonourable.

Anyway, the main point in this article is that this white supremacist group was going to try and start a civil war. That's pretty fucked up right there, and I wonder if any of the WP members on here would seriously try to defend it. Because if you really think our culture/race/religion is better than them/theirs, this sort of thing is an ugly taint on it.

[Chicago Red]

Not to be the wet rag on the fuse of fun and everything...but it is against the rules of critical thinking to demand that people prove you wrong...when in actuality, the burden is on you to prove that your thesis stands up under scrunity.

Not too well so far in my calculation of this conversation...

[quote=LastRites;44313]Im not going to answer some of your points because I'll be repeating what I will be writing later on.

<snip>

Youre trying to prove me wrong by saying the exact same thing as me except using a bit more detail? Even Orgin of Species was laughable during its publishing days. Point is...people didnt take him seriously at first and dismissed his works as propaganda. Hell...some still do it today. No different than what we do to non politically correct authors of today today. Sometimes even worse, we jail them for what we consider their scientific work as a hatecrime. True some of these authors are not correct in the head but we cannot push away their ideas without examining them first.

Dont say Im wrong over and over again, prove me wrong. Prove that some civilizations were not superior to others. Dont just pick one factor such as population or mathematics....an overall look at the whole civilization and compare it to another. We might as well try using the same time periods to make it more interesting.

<snip>

[Chicago Red]

Uhhhh...not to be a bore...but would not Sumner the first civilization pointed to by anthropoligist be "superior" based on your previous definitions?

Sumer was not the first superior civilization but believed to be first civlization period. Studies show that they have come to that stage through social organization. Some anthoropologists point that many of these factors which contributed to this social organization such as farming for example, came from the north. The Sumerian language has been adapted into the Indo-European language category. So many theories point that people who build Sumer migrated there. Whether this place was already resided by other populations is unknown to me but after looking up this subject it says that the people of Sumer had a language which was unintuitive to the Semitic speakers there. So in my opinion, one group of people migrated and dominated another. They lived side by side but one language/culture was clearly dominant for whatever reason. It had a higher ranking therefore superior not on a comparing level but to eachother.

Strictly in terms of sociocultural evolution.

[Chicago Red]

Careful....or I'm going to start calling you Mr. Eugenics and sign you up for a free membership with Planned Parenthood.

I for one am also a believer in conscious evolution. The belief that: a process of giving direction to the evolution of human systems by purposeful action and/or a process by which we can individually and collectively take responsibility for our future. And in such topics I use "culture". Even Darwin based his theory of artificial selection, in which who gets to breed is by act of concious reason.
While you are forcing yourself to believe that natural selection is strictly in terms of pure random chance, I believe that one affects the other and vice versa. Does this make any sense to you?

[LastRites]

Uhhhh...not to be a bore...but would not Sumner the first civilization pointed to by anthropoligist be "superior" based on your previous definitions?
Superior to what? The primitive people who didnt have such complex society of the same time period? - sure we can look it that way, it doesnt necessarly mean that the "other" people who didnt create such civilization were inferior. Im not defending nor arguing an argument used by many racists that we are different people in the sense one being superior over the other physically. However intellectually is a different situation, although not inherited via genetics, it is via culture which is an invention in different places of different races under different circumstances. But it is up to the person to act on it, adapt and progress or evolve. Hency why different types of people/creatures living in one area are either extinct or dominated by other. And not all of these circumstances are enviromental such as the theory of "natural selecion by random chance" suggests. I believe that culture shaped and shapes the path of the evolution that the people are going under. In other words, people giving direction to their evolution by their own invention of culture.

[LastRites]

Not to be the wet rag on the fuse of fun and everything...but it is against the rules of critical thinking to demand that people prove you wrong...when in actuality, the burden is on you to prove that your thesis stands up under scrunity.

Not too well so far in my calculation of this conversation...

Critical thinking is a mental process of analizing information that people have presented as true. Neither of us has done that. And its a debate.

[LastRites]

I have never, nor will I ever, claim knowledge of absolute truth. Probably because I don't think such a thing exists, but that's a whole 'nother discussion.
Thats why I think its important to understand population migration and its position to the creations of complex societies. The time periods of specific evolutionary time periods, when it affected the people and why....not just how.


Back on topic, we were talking about ethnic/racial superiority and you have managed to once again dodge the question. What ethnicity/race/culture is superior, and why? What supports that?

This question cannot be answered by yourself or me....it can be answered by populations which have become successful and dominant over others through their choosen path of evolution using their own invention of culture. On an individual level all humans are the same, all are given the same chance...but here I will throw in that some evolved differently and/or quicker than others and all are still in the process of doing so. I suggested it was the actions of humans (such as migration) that made them steer towards a path which resulted in physically change. By that I mean that all humans came from one race and evolved into hundreds of races. Different populations of this groups race using their actions have either evolved quicker or slower that others. Now if culture affects such process as I believe, then where does that leave us on the struggle for survival and self interest?

[grouchybastid]

This question cannot be answered by yourself or me....

Dodge.

it can be answered by populations which have become successful and dominant over others through their choosen path of evolution using their own invention of culture.

Fourth (?) time: Successful is not equivalent to superior in this context.


On an individual level all humans are the same, all are given the same chance...but here I will throw in that some evolved differently and/or quicker than others and all are still in the process of doing so. I suggested it was the actions of humans (such as migration) that made them steer towards a path which resulted in physically change. By that I mean that all humans came from one race and evolved into hundreds of races. Different populations of this groups race using their actions have either evolved quicker or slower that others. Now if culture affects such process as I believe, then where does that leave us on the struggle for survival and self interest?

You are continuing with a fundamentally flawed argument. People have neither a) evolved at different rates from other groups of people, nor b) divided into subraces at all. Honestly, until you can get past these outdated and meaningless concepts, you won't have a solid argument. You're trying to build a skyscraper on a foundation of sand. Doomed to failure.

[LastRites]

Dodge.
Its not a dodge, youre continuing to ask me a question which I right off the bat told ya I didnt didnt believe on an individual level

Fourth (?) time: Successful is not equivalent to superior in this context.
Well then, please explain to me what does it mean when one culture in many if not all aspects dominates another at the same time period in the same climate. Id like to hear an explanation instead of the "youre wrong".

You are continuing with a fundamentally flawed argument. People have neither a) evolved at different rates from other groups of people, nor b) divided into subraces at all. Honestly, until you can get past these outdated and meaningless concepts, you won't have a solid argument. You're trying to build a skyscraper on a foundation of sand. Doomed to failure.
Then once again, I ask you to explain to me why evolution took its course in such different directions, creating such differences from which human products are born to help them become more succesful. Why not how.
And...to add to this...if subraces do not exist, what are terms such as Dinaric or Baltic used as?

[grouchybastid]

Its not a dodge, youre continuing to ask me a question which I right off the bat told ya I didnt didnt believe on an individual level

I wasn't asking about individuals, I'm asking about groups. Broken down simply, you claim to believe that some cultures/societies/ethnicities are superior to others, yes? I'm asking you to state which cultures/societies/ethnicities are superior, why you claim that and show backing evidence.

And if you don't, in fact, believe this...why the hell would you fight so hard to defend it?


Well then, please explain to me what does it mean when one culture in many if not all aspects dominates another at the same time period in the same climate. Id like to hear an explanation instead of the "youre wrong".

I already did. I'll even say it again:

Successful does not mean superior. There is no other explanation to give, that is the explanation. When biologists talk about competing species, they do not assign superior status to the more successful. When anthropologists talk about tribes of humans, the same thing applies.

How many more times do you want me to say it? If you want to hear it from somebody else, do some research. I've already mentioned Jared Diamond's Guns Germs and Steel, he's also written Collapse. Start there.


Then once again, I ask you to explain to me why evolution took its course in such different directions, creating such differences from which human products are born to help them become more succesful. Why not how.

Once again, I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Evolution took differing courses in human development? Where are you coming up with that? Differences from which human products are born? WTF does that even mean?


And...to add to this...if subraces do not exist, what are terms such as Dinaric or Baltic used as?

They are terms that, once again, were thought up and popularized almost a hundred years ago. You really need to put down the