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.
That depends on how we define the term "white". Italians and Greeks were considered non-white in the 19th century.
The Ancient Egyptians were definitely not "white" by measure.
First, only “Brits” were considered White..
For much of US history, not all Europeans were considered “white” like in today’s terms. “White” people use to refer only to Anglo-Saxon Protestants. In the beginning.. also catholic germans from Bavaria were not considered "White".. than catholic Irish..catholic Poles... catholic Hungarians..catholic Italians...Jewish..
For much of US history, not all Europeans were considered “white” like in today’s terms. “White” people use to refer only to Anglo-Saxon Protestants. In the beginning.. also catholic germans from Bavaria were not considered "White".. than catholic Irish..catholic Poles... catholic Hungarians..catholic Italians...Jewish..
The Irish were never considered in the same class as blacks. I don't believe they distinguished themselves from blacks to further their own advancement either. It just appeared to them that they were better than blacks.
They were considered lower that the Anglo-Saxons, true, but not as low as blacks. Same for the Italians and Polish.
These classifications go back to the earliest of days, when the different groups first encountered each other. The Irish were wild, undisciplined. They were ferocious fighters. Anglo-Saxons started fighting them and Scots as soon as they arrived in England. The Scots in particular were notorious cattle rustlers, raiding over their border to steal from Northumbrian herds.
When other European groups first encountered Slavs, they thought them slavish in their relations with their chieftains. i.e., they carried themselves as slaves. That's why they were called Slavs in the first place.
Russians behave in this manner even today. Only strong rulers are respected there, can rule there. Men who can't be challenged, who have undisputed authority, and who are in fact dangerous to challenge. Hence Uncle Joe Stalin and Vladimir Putin.
Italians? It goes back to Roman times. Ever since the Battle of the Teutoberger Wald. They brought back stories of their defeat and slaughter and ever since then, the Italians have been afraid of forests, which became places of darkness and fear to them. And they feared the Germans, who were both taller and stronger than they were.
These attitudes precede these peoples encountering each other in America and go back to their first encounters in the long ago. They came here with them.
When other European groups first encountered Slavs, they thought them slavish in their relations with their chieftains. i.e., they carried themselves as slaves. That's why they were called Slavs in the first place.
This is 100% wrong. The word "Slav" is derived from the Greek word Sklavenoi which was the name of southern Slavic tribe that had interactions with the Byzantine Empire. The word has absolutely nothing to do with slavery or being slavish.
For much of US history, not all Europeans were considered “white” like in today’s terms. “White” people use to refer only to Anglo-Saxon Protestants. In the beginning.. also catholic germans from Bavaria were not considered "White".. than catholic Irish..catholic Poles... catholic Hungarians..catholic Italians...Jewish..
True. The definition of who is "white" has always be defined by those in a position of power. The purpose of the "white" identity has been one of exclusion and discrimination.
True. The definition of who is "white" has always be defined by those in a position of power. The purpose of the "white" identity has been one of exclusion and discrimination.
This is true. So now the definition of white in America is pretty much all non-people of color or mixture, even some who are of color. Jews, Irish, French, Central and Easter Europe, Hispanic whites etc. are all considered white.
Quote:
The inclusion of non-Europeans in the definition of white is controversial. Many of the non-European ethnic groups classified as white by the U.S. Census, such as Arab Americans,[10]Jewish Americans,[11][12][13][14] and Hispanics or Latinos, may not identify as, or may not perceived to be, white.
Even Asian Americans are now considered to be "white" as it relates to affirmative action and racial quotas on college campuses. Basically, there's "too many" Asians at prestigious colleges leading to a "lack of diversity" so now some college are actively rejecting highly qualified Asian candidates.
But as you said, the inclusion or consideration of being white is often defined by those in power. If blacks were in power all of a sudden tomorrow, the light ones or mixed ones would be considered "white."
This is true. So now the definition of white in America is pretty much all non-people of color or mixture, even some who are of color. Jews, Irish, French, Central and Easter Europe, Hispanic whites etc. are all considered white.
Whiteness likes to "appropriate" peoples and histories that it finds successful and take it as its own. Ancient Egypt...white, Ancient Greece...white, Jews start winning all these Noble Prizes...white, Middle Eastern people making all this money in business...white.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocko20
Even Asian Americans are now considered to be "white" as it relates to affirmative action and racial quotas on college campuses. Basically, there's "too many" Asians at prestigious colleges leading to a "lack of diversity" so now some college are actively rejecting highly qualified Asian candidates.
But as you said, the inclusion or consideration of being white is often defined by those in power. If blacks were in power all of a sudden tomorrow, the light ones or mixed ones would be considered "white."
Its all part of the endless cycle of Whiteness appropriating and excluding.
This is 100% wrong. The word "Slav" is derived from the Greek word Sklavenoi which was the name of southern Slavic tribe that had interactions with the Byzantine Empire. The word has absolutely nothing to do with slavery or being slavish.
The word existed much earlier than that. The Sclaveni, also spelled Slaveni, consisted of three great tribes, the Slavs, the Antes and the Venedi (aka Veneti).
Jordanes was a member of a Gothic tribe and an historian, and he documented his tribe's migration from Scandinavia to Crimea, in addition to detailing the tribe's interactions with Slavic tribes.
The Venedi lived roughly where Poland is, the Slaveni where Ukraine is, and the Antes east of the Slaveni. Strabo, Herodutos, Ptolemy, Tacitus and others mention them and Gibbon quotes them in his work.
The Slaveni migrated into the Balkans, and the Antes moved to occupy areas further west. Over time, Germanic groups cut-off the Venedi and Slavs from the Antes, so that the language of the Antes evolved into Slavic, and the language of the Venedi into Western Slavic.
Other groups like the Huns, Tartars, Magyars, Avars, Mongols and Turks cut-off the Venedi on an East-West axis, and their language evolved into Southern Slavic.
That's how that works.
Quote:
Originally Posted by albion
Look at the important inventions that came from the tiny British Isles, the amount is truly amazing.
Need drives invention. The British naval and merchant fleets needed an accurate means to measure time so they would know their location exact on the seas, thus, many clocks were developed specifically for that.
If you don't have a navy, you don't have much use for a clock.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sean1the1
I think it has to do with necessity, in Europe you can't just take it easy and expect to survive, Europe is not designed for Human Beings, in order to be successful in that environment human beings had to change the way we did things. In central Africa you don't have to do much to survive. As humans just like any other animal we do things out of Necessity not just because. lol
That's not only bizarre, it's totally wrong.
There are few poisonous reptiles in Europe, few diseases that are deadly or harmful to humans, and few wild animals that prey on humans.
You can't say that for Africa.
Yes, it's true that bears roaming in groups of a couple dozen, along with packs of wolves and wild-dogs wrecked havoc. There are documented instances when a Roman cohort --roughly 480 men -- were attacked by packs of wolves or wild dogs and suffered heavy losses.
But, those were rare occurrences, taking place during a specific period in time. The Roman economy collapsed, and emperors issued edicts freezing wages and prices. It collapsed because of famine, and because of Asiatic Plague that killed 25% of the population, and in many cases, wiped out entire villages.
Not only do you have climate-induced famine, you don't have enough people to grow food to feed everyone, and up until about the 14th and 15th Centuries, it took 95% of your population, including children working in the fields or tending flocks and herds, to feed everyone.
Aside from that, Europe has a plethora of deciduous and conifer trees to make anything you want, including charcoal, plus provide nuts for nutrition. It literally has hundreds of rivers teeming with fish, and nearly every single river is navigable. There's an abundance of rocks of all types suitable for building materials and other uses, and coal seams and iron, tin, lead and copper ores were visible on the surface and free for the taking without having to mine for anything. There were also vast fields, plains and steppes to grow a variety of crops.
You can't say that about Africa, either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2ner
The word 'colonialism' has become one of those easy explains-everything, catch-all terms. Why is such-and-such country backwards? Easy answer: colonialism. Who's the culprit? Easy answer: some European colonial power or the U.S.
Australia is an Anglo-Saxon country. But it never had colonies... it WAS a colony... subject to British imperialism or colonialism. It's GDP per capita is $59,655 -- the 10th highest in the world. Ethiopia was never any other country's colony. It's GDP per capita is $927... and 37 cents.
Ethiopia didn't have any ports.
The only way to get things was to port at Djibouti and travel overland.
Without ports, you're not exactly going to be a sea-faring State.
Different cultures happened to have been in power at different times throughout history. Greeks, Romans, Arabians, etc. all controlled vast empires at different times. For example, the technological, cultural, and economic levels of the Moors (definitely not white) were vastly superior to those of the Europeans during the dark ages. The Moors had universal education at a time when 99% of Europeans were illiterate.
By pure luck, white Europeans were in power when technology reached a point to allow reliable global travel and exploration, so they are the ones who colonized and conquered the largest percentage of the globe.
By pure luck, 95% of the AmerIndian population on two entire continents was wiped out by a apocalyptic plague (arguably caused by European diseases). If not for this fact the AmerIndians would have eventually kicked the European's collective a**es. Instead, two entire continents were empty and ready for a takeover by the culture that happened to be in power at the time. This vast expansion of territory magnified their power growth.
By pure luck, sub-Saharan Africans were at a low-point of power during this time, and were driven even further down by the slave trade.
European culture never expanded to the far east because of the vast distances and massive geographic barriers (mountains & desert separating the middle east from the far east; huge oceans and two continents separating them in the other direction). But because of the sudden massive technological advances along with a lot of luck (see three items above) they were left behind until the 20th Century.
Think about it... if the Moors had been in power during the onset of the Industrial Age the world would be a vastly different place.
This is 100% wrong. The word "Slav" is derived from the Greek word Sklavenoi which was the name of southern Slavic tribe that had interactions with the Byzantine Empire. The word has absolutely nothing to do with slavery or being slavish.
You are wrong... During late roman empire and early middle age..... many slavic people were "servus" and so it was easy to indicate any "servus" as a SLAVIC.. or SLAVE.
OTTO THE GREAT " GERMAN KAISER/EMPEROR ..enslaved" many many slavic people ..
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.
