Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Are we ( the former Soviet citizens) the only ones that were taught the World history in secondary schools ( and history of church as part of the curriculum,) or what?
It's not my "opinion" we are talking about here - these are historic facts.
See, before Turkish ( Islamic) conquest, ALL these people were Christians - Bosnians and Albanians including.
But some areas in Balkans ( such as Serbia and Bulgaria for example) had already more prominently established Orthodox Church, and when forced to convert into Islam, the population of these countries have put up a fierce resistance ( for which it was constantly persecuted.) And SOME areas ( such as Bosnia and Albania) were a battleground for dominance between Catholic ( Western) and Orthodox ( Eastern) Christian churches. This is the reason most likely why Christianity didn't take hold there in the same manner as it was in other areas, and thus it was easier for Turks to submit population of Bosnia and Albania under Islam.
So while Serbia and Bulgaria were liberated ( with Russian help) from Islamic oppression, and these countries returned to their Christian faith, Islam remained in Albania and Bosnia ( even after the Turks left,) because its institutions were already stronger than previous Christian faith ( that was not prominently established there to begin with.)
I know all of them were Christians . That is the point . Shouldn't their european genes prevail anyway and lead Bosnians and Albanians to Christianity like Serbians , though ? Doesn't it contradict your views on genetics that they those people fell so easily towards asian islam and did not hold to their kin's faith ?
I know all of them were Christians . That is the point . Shouldn't their european genes prevail anyway and lead Bosnians and Albanians to Christianity like Serbians , though ? Doesn't it contradict your views on genetics that they those people fell so easily towards asian islam and did not hold to their kin's faith ?
Even when submitted under Islam, their European genes prevent Islam to be in the same shape and form as it is in the Middle East, in Gulf countries.
Have you seen too many Bosnian suicide bombers lately?
I respect your point of view , but I just disagree . For me if you put an irish or german toddler into afghan or indian family , he will be totally like them when he grows up and there will be no difference between him and his native afghan and native indian siblings.
With all due respect, you live in a politically correct fantasy that has never been born out in reality; especially over larger population samples.
Asserting something over and over again will never cause it to manifest in reality.
In addition, you are arguing from a place of being subjected to some of he most intense social programming man has known, being educated in either post WWII Germany or Poland.
We don' expect you to be able to acknowledge a different reality than what you were taught, but at the same time please know that reality is different than what the Allies sought to en-train the continental population to believe - especially in West-Central Europe.
Quote:
Genes will not matter , only the culture and environment that he would be brought up with.
It is widely accepted that nature plays a part in behavior and intelligence.
Quote:
I honestly have hard time to believe that it is even debatable .
You don't keep up with science, and you seem to be socially sheltered. Being sheltered isn't your fault, and I'm somewhat jealous; ignoring the boot on your collective throats. What I'm jealous of is the relatively high living standard, which requires a certain brand of social sheltering to be high. This quality of life will decrease in direct proportion to the increase in foreign population influx, and your innocence will wane. Bored people tend to look forward to such excitement, but your children will curse you. This assumes that you aren't of a population that will directly benefit, via increased political power, from diluting the majority population.
Whereas I live in a city whose multiculturalism is biblical in nature. That is, it is completely ahistorical except in myth. With that comes decades of close experience with myriad of populations. You are taught that all of our "population" problems are "our" fault. I'm here to tell you that is an unequivocal lie.
In addition, I have an advanced degree that allows me to properly analyze science. I also analyze deep history and population genetics for fun. I enjoy it. What I am telling you on the science front is true.
Quote:
Look at Bosnia and Albania , they are europeans and yet they are muslims . Their european genes did not prevent them from adopting their new religion and new customs.
"Europeans" is a term with no genetic meaning. It barely has a historical geopolitical meaning. You'd have to get much more specific. Depending on who you are referring to specifically, as it is likely that those populations are mixed, those populations will indeed have different outcomes than Near East and Central Asian Turk and Arab populations.
I'm curious as to what you hope to accomplish in arguing here. You aren't going to "win". You aren't going to convince those arguing against you. In fact, the evidence is against you in every sphere: science, observation of outcomes over large samples of people, etc.
So, what's the point? To have the last assertion in the thread? If so, why not just say that? Maybe we'll let you have it to end a debate that isn't going to go anywhere.
That is a good question . Germans come and tell us we are germans . Then Poles come and tell us we are polish . And that basicaly throughout our whole history . And because of that I have both polish and german citizenships . So technically I am both or neither of them . It depends on how you look at it .
You're both. But the Prussian group has long been culturally both. "German" (in the modern sense) and yet attacked and enslaved by "Germans". Right? The question is whether your particular family is closer to Nord, Saxon, or Slav. You likely know, but it is also likely there is a mix of all three in your family if they have been here for a length of time.
Your population has large proportions of R1a, I1, and I2a2 haplotypes. Unless you are a foreigner from Turkey, are Jewish, or some other such element that is more recent or self-isolated in the region, it's a high probability that you are one of those; but all "local" haplotypes exist within the Northeast German - Northwest Polish group.
My grandfather's family was from Prussia, and my last name is Prussian. Fantastic people. My father was adopted, and so I likely don't share Prussian genetics. Though, one of my genetic great-grandmothers was born in Kiel.
For a start I don't think you have any idea at how mixed 21st Century populations are
I do. Not very, in sum. Contrary to popular belief. Individuals tend to stand out though, giving an impression of more mixing than there actually is. Spending time in cities can also give that false impression.
Quote:
and to claim that Germans are 'good farmers' because they are German and somehow genetically 'different' is ludicrous to say the least!
Ok.
It does take one to know one.
Quote:
The only Germans that make 'good farmers' are Germans that make 'good farmers' you don't have to be Russian to dance like a Cossack, you don't have to be Jamaican to make good reggae music! What makes a 'difference' in people is their up-bringing and not their genetics.
You EU members have been trained well.
Unfortunately, your assertion about Germans and farming, specifically, is wrong. As history has long noted from the Near East, through Europe, and the United States.
Quote:
both are as British (specifically English)
You aren't going to like this, but both terms, "Birtish" and "English" directly point to tribal identifications of historical tribes that were not multicultural whatsoever. One could say that they point to a genetic identification (I'm trying to be as polite as possible). I do understand that the meaning has been legally changed, but that does not change the origin of the terminology nor what it unavoidably points to (since the ancient tribes in question can not be changed). A native Jamaican can never be an "Angle".
Here are the actors from rural midwest and small towns (There are their birthplaces listed ) from midwest , like Clark Gable , Paul Newman , Tippi Hedren , James Dean , Jessica Lange , Jessica Biel and many others . I could not find a single one of fully german descend . As I said , I do not think it is coincidence . Most of people even from rural areas are of mixed ancestry .
Have you ever been to the United States? You analyze it like you have not, and thus don't understand how it is populated.
If you were to eliminate all first tier cities from the analysis, most of the population lives outside of cities. "Midwest" does not equate to "rural". Chicago is in the "mid-west", for instance.
Lets just take Chicago is this immense nation, for example.
Do you know the nature of Chicago, in terms of economic mode, populations, or how the complete economic area interacts and is characterized? You could take a "small town" in Northern Illinois, which will give no indication of is nature on paper, but it will be in the Chicagoland area.
Meaning it will have enjoyed a long-time influx and outflux of urban bourgeoisie commuter populations that are not representative of the greater "mid-west" in general. This extends for at least 1.25 hours outside of the city limits.
This example is merely one city, and in-between the cities are immense expanses of populated farmland.
Moreover, your methods of assessing "German ancestry" have to this point lacked, as you end to take a purely cultural tack. So, how can your "background" assessment of these actors be reliable?
You likely don't understand how often actors in this nation come from bourgeoisie backgrounds, to often include seemingly "midwest" actors. Often actors are from political, business, academic, or are otherwise legacy families even when nominally "from" some town you've never heard of (ie: because the father was posted there, or some other inane reason).
For example, looking at Kelsey Grammer's bio you'd think that his family was pretty down and out. However, there are telltale signs that his mother was from a privileged background. First, there is Grammer's exceedingly upper class New England accent, which very few people have or could spontaneously adopt, even though he began his life in New Jersey (from what I remember). His mother than moved him to white-trash Fort Lauderdale Florida. Look closer, and he attended an elite private school there.
This is one example. Hollywood is more complicated than you think, in terms of who makes it and does not. Assessing the background of celebrities, who are by definition a non-standard group, is a methodologically awful way to attempt to gain population insight in the US.
I before told you how the populations have spread in this nation. Yet, you return here to inform us that I'm wrong because you tried to analyze the background of a few celebrities; and this correction just so happens to offer comfort to your pet political theories. I can show you historical immigration maps for the US. I can show you DNA maps for Europe. I can take you on a tour of the midwestern US to show you the gradations of population genetics through the regions. I can take you to the largest legacy farming communities in the US to show you who they are. Yet you return to tell us that the Wiki of Paul Newman tells us that he isn't wholly "German" and that proves your point. Funny stuff. Arrogant in a way that clearly comes from not having experience here, but funny nevertheless.
All populations have a mix of Y and MtDNA haplotypes. Those mixes create the population. Those mixes have limits on them, which defines the group, and these limits are defined by a loose percentage of haplotype in each population (ie: The Swedes are genetically differentiated from the Dutch due to the much higher and dominant percentage of I1 haplotype in the group, in contrast with the dominant Dutch R1b subclade. Both of these haplotypes exist within both groups, but the relative percentage differentiates the groups).
Thus, "German" is relatively meaningless. Haplotype is not. However, the German culture was created by and is tailored to the haplotype mixes in the greater "German" groups, and these differing groups will have sometimes significant differences in German culture and overall behavior. Not all German groups were or are farmers, for example. However, the Germans who are and tended to be, historically, tend to excel at it.
Do you think that the haplotype that founded Farming in the neolithic period might have some special skill at it? Who were the first farmers?
Do you think that having 1000 years of experience over another group at the least, might offer a greater facility for an activity as a group?
Would a deeply historical legacy Saxon horse culture have a group advantage in culture and habit over other up-start groups in everything related to horse breeding, riding, and horseback warfare?
Would a difference in long time experience, culture, and habit between West and East Germans make a difference in either preference or facility for farming? West Germans had been farming for centuries, if not Millenia, before East Germans began to. Are those results still visible today? Remember, here I'm comparing two "German" groups. I haven't even yet begun such a comparison outside of Germany.
This is food for thought. We all have different talents. We are not all the same, and some of that is nature that results from thousands of years, if not more, of environment and habit. I can't dunk a basketball, and my child won't be able to either. I can shoot one okay, but not enough to go pro.
With all due respect, you live in a politically correct fantasy that has never been born out in reality; especially over larger population samples.
He is partly right in this matter, if a European child were risen by Afghans in Afghanisten, he might become a typical Afghan in mind. The same vice versa, if an Afghan child were risen by Germans in Germany without strange influence he would become a German in mind.
However, the reality is, Afghan/Muslims/whatever in Germany or other European countries are usually risen by their real parents and thus they not neccessarily become "westeners", the larger the parallel societies the more they remain middle easteners or whatever, this is not about genetics, but about culture and the strangers usually do not adopt our culture and this is why they not become Germans but remain aliens for generations.
With all due respect, you live in a politically correct fantasy that has never been born out in reality; especially over larger population samples.
Asserting something over and over again will never cause it to manifest in reality.
In addition, you are arguing from a place of being subjected to some of he most intense social programming man has known, being educated in either post WWII Germany or Poland.
We don' expect you to be able to acknowledge a different reality than what you were taught, but at the same time please know that reality is different than what the Allies sought to en-train the continental population to believe - especially in West-Central Europe.
It is widely accepted that nature plays a part in behavior and intelligence.
You don't keep up with science, and you seem to be socially sheltered. Being sheltered isn't your fault, and I'm somewhat jealous; ignoring the boot on your collective throats. What I'm jealous of is the relatively high living standard, which requires a certain brand of social sheltering to be high. This quality of life will decrease in direct proportion to the increase in foreign population influx, and your innocence will wane. Bored people tend to look forward to such excitement, but your children will curse you. This assumes that you aren't of a population that will directly benefit, via increased political power, from diluting the majority population.
Whereas I live in a city whose multiculturalism is biblical in nature. That is, it is completely ahistorical except in myth. With that comes decades of close experience with myriad of populations. You are taught that all of our "population" problems are "our" fault. I'm here to tell you that is an unequivocal lie.
In addition, I have an advanced degree that allows me to properly analyze science. I also analyze deep history and population genetics for fun. I enjoy it. What I am telling you on the science front is true.
"Europeans" is a term with no genetic meaning. It barely has a historical geopolitical meaning. You'd have to get much more specific. Depending on who you are referring to specifically, as it is likely that those populations are mixed, those populations will indeed have different outcomes than Near East and Central Asian Turk and Arab populations.
I'm curious as to what you hope to accomplish in arguing here. You aren't going to "win". You aren't going to convince those arguing against you. In fact, the evidence is against you in every sphere: science, observation of outcomes over large samples of people, etc.
So, what's the point? To have the last assertion in the thread? If so, why not just say that? Maybe we'll let you have it to end a debate that isn't going to go anywhere.
Sorry man , with all due respect , but you seem to be living in your own world . How A am I politicaly correct if I have already said that not all muslims are welcome in Europe . And immigrants should be limited and checked thoroughly before their arrival ? That only the ones that are ready to assimilate and respect european values and customs should be approved .I am just realist and know people who are siblings and have totally different characters . Surely they have the same genes . They just spreaded differentely . Noone in Germany will claim you as german because you have some ancestor from Kiel . Those people who consider themselves german but are too lazy to even learn the language are pathetic in my opinion .
I do not wanna accomplish anything . This is FORUM AND A THREAT . So I discuss in this threat . This is what it is all about .
Most people do not agree with your theories . Check out previous pages of this thread if you do not believe it , THERE WAS EVEN A USER FROM GERMANY WHO LIVED IN WISCONSIN AND SAID THAT THOSE PEOPLE ARE NOTHING ALIKE . What a surprise .
The evidence is against you in every sphere . I can give you examples of Germans , Polish , French with foreign surnames who are totally german , polish , french . Who got completely assimilated . But if you wanna believe that if your ancestor came from Germany , so you surely would be a good farmer , so believe in it . I do not believe in fairytales .
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure
Even when submitted under Islam, their European genes prevent Islam to be in the same shape and form as it is in the Middle East, in Gulf countries.
Have you seen too many Bosnian suicide bombers lately?
I even know of Pole in Isis who died fo them .
Last edited by WestPreussen; 05-06-2018 at 04:25 AM..
You're both. But the Prussian group has long been culturally both. "German" (in the modern sense) and yet attacked and enslaved by "Germans". Right? The question is whether your particular family is closer to Nord, Saxon, or Slav. You likely know, but it is also likely there is a mix of all three in your family if they have been here for a length of time.
Your population has large proportions of R1a, I1, and I2a2 haplotypes. Unless you are a foreigner from Turkey, are Jewish, or some other such element that is more recent or self-isolated in the region, it's a high probability that you are one of those; but all "local" haplotypes exist within the Northeast German - Northwest Polish group.
My grandfather's family was from Prussia, and my last name is Prussian. Fantastic people. My father was adopted, and so I likely don't share Prussian genetics. Though, one of my genetic great-grandmothers was born in Kiel.
Prussians (those new ones , germans) were culturally (in a behavioural way) totally different from polish . Poles were 180 degrees unlike them . You are wrong again . There were no original prussians (baltic people) where I am from . They were east to the Vistula river . There was not any enslavement in Pomerania and Prussia . Just gradual assimilation . How is your last name prussian ? This language is dead for a long time . You mean you last name derives from some town in Prussia or that it has the "ke" suffix ?
Last edited by WestPreussen; 05-06-2018 at 04:21 AM..
Have you ever been to the United States? You analyze it like you have not, and thus don't understand how it is populated.
If you were to eliminate all first tier cities from the analysis, most of the population lives outside of cities. "Midwest" does not equate to "rural". Chicago is in the "mid-west", for instance.
Lets just take Chicago is this immense nation, for example.
Do you know the nature of Chicago, in terms of economic mode, populations, or how the complete economic area interacts and is characterized? You could take a "small town" in Northern Illinois, which will give no indication of is nature on paper, but it will be in the Chicagoland area.
Meaning it will have enjoyed a long-time influx and outflux of urban bourgeoisie commuter populations that are not representative of the greater "mid-west" in general. This extends for at least 1.25 hours outside of the city limits.
This example is merely one city, and in-between the cities are immense expanses of populated farmland.
Moreover, your methods of assessing "German ancestry" have to this point lacked, as you end to take a purely cultural tack. So, how can your "background" assessment of these actors be reliable?
You likely don't understand how often actors in this nation come from bourgeoisie backgrounds, to often include seemingly "midwest" actors. Often actors are from political, business, academic, or are otherwise legacy families even when nominally "from" some town you've never heard of (ie: because the father was posted there, or some other inane reason).
For example, looking at Kelsey Grammer's bio you'd think that his family was pretty down and out. However, there are telltale signs that his mother was from a privileged background. First, there is Grammer's exceedingly upper class New England accent, which very few people have or could spontaneously adopt, even though he began his life in New Jersey (from what I remember). His mother than moved him to white-trash Fort Lauderdale Florida. Look closer, and he attended an elite private school there.
This is one example. Hollywood is more complicated than you think, in terms of who makes it and does not. Assessing the background of celebrities, who are by definition a non-standard group, is a methodologically awful way to attempt to gain population insight in the US.
I before told you how the populations have spread in this nation. Yet, you return here to inform us that I'm wrong because you tried to analyze the background of a few celebrities; and this correction just so happens to offer comfort to your pet political theories. I can show you historical immigration maps for the US. I can show you DNA maps for Europe. I can take you on a tour of the midwestern US to show you the gradations of population genetics through the regions. I can take you to the largest legacy farming communities in the US to show you who they are. Yet you return to tell us that the Wiki of Paul Newman tells us that he isn't wholly "German" and that proves your point. Funny stuff. Arrogant in a way that clearly comes from not having experience here, but funny nevertheless.
All populations have a mix of Y and MtDNA haplotypes. Those mixes create the population. Those mixes have limits on them, which defines the group, and these limits are defined by a loose percentage of haplotype in each population (ie: The Swedes are genetically differentiated from the Dutch due to the much higher and dominant percentage of I1 haplotype in the group, in contrast with the dominant Dutch R1b subclade. Both of these haplotypes exist within both groups, but the relative percentage differentiates the groups).
Thus, "German" is relatively meaningless. Haplotype is not. However, the German culture was created by and is tailored to the haplotype mixes in the greater "German" groups, and these differing groups will have sometimes significant differences in German culture and overall behavior. Not all German groups were or are farmers, for example. However, the Germans who are and tended to be, historically, tend to excel at it.
Do you think that the haplotype that founded Farming in the neolithic period might have some special skill at it? Who were the first farmers?
Do you think that having 1000 years of experience over another group at the least, might offer a greater facility for an activity as a group?
Would a deeply historical legacy Saxon horse culture have a group advantage in culture and habit over other up-start groups in everything related to horse breeding, riding, and horseback warfare?
Would a difference in long time experience, culture, and habit between West and East Germans make a difference in either preference or facility for farming? West Germans had been farming for centuries, if not Millenia, before East Germans began to. Are those results still visible today? Remember, here I'm comparing two "German" groups. I haven't even yet begun such a comparison outside of Germany.
This is food for thought. We all have different talents. We are not all the same, and some of that is nature that results from thousands of years, if not more, of environment and habit. I can't dunk a basketball, and my child won't be able to either. I can shoot one okay, but not enough to go pro.
And I believe you , how those populations spread out . So what ? Those people are just americans even if they are of fully german descend . They abandoned their ancestors culture and language . In south farmers are of mostly british extraction . Are you gonna tell us now that british are good farmers ? Very funny . There was a land aviliable , so they took it . Didn't you or someone else claim that british are supposed to be tradesmen ? So why farmers in the south are mostly of british descend ? If you really knew a lot about science , you would know that people ACCOMODATE . That is their biggest skill . Like most other species . We no longer live in constant move , we settled . We accomodated . All those scientist people have ancestors who were farmers and hunters and gatherers . It have not prevented them from being someone else . They evolved . You treat people as if they are retarted spiece . Like some cockroaches or bugs . Like they do not change and do not accomodate to new situations and to new realities . You are not gonna convince most people here to your theories . You should have realised that , when you read previous pages . Not only people from Europe but also people from America did not agree with you . So I do not know , what you are talking about , that in America , there is a different perspective . Don't you still have very political correct affirmative action there ? Very politically correct country that United States is , indeed . The United States is basically a contradiction of your believes . One big melting pot , where people from different backgrounds married eachother without their suppposed "different unique genes" mattering at all to them and created a new nation .
Last edited by WestPreussen; 05-06-2018 at 05:03 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
