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.
It was mainly through suppression and the manipulation of the English Language, and the government systems that came out of Europe. Any nations of (modern Europe) that raided a nation of wealth, and set of a law system of real estate that give them control over land would have the advantage. Greeks have always tried to promote white as been the standard, and the world brought that lie. I am glad those lies are being brought down in history. In fact this very thread explains why some have this illusion of advancement by creating class differences and exploiting division. Nothing new, but the oldest trick that came from England, Europe, to justify immoral behavior.
Funny how people tend to forget about the human atrocity like the Holocaust, Atlantic Slaves Trade, and the raiding of wealth from Africa. Some cultures are just good at stealing history and re-shaping for their advantage.
I am afraid that you are yourself revising history.
Facts are terrible things to hide and destroy, as they keep poking their pesky heads up again. It is hard to conceal facts for long.
Political correctness attempts to alter history to fit the narrative and agenda of the left, but fails when inconvenient truths come up, time and time again.
There is a reason for the way things are, and one needs to be objective about the actual causes, rather than rationalizing an alternative reality with lies.
Ok and? You realize what you're showing me is clusters. That scientists can say with a high degree of accuracy if someone is an askenazi jew just by their genetic fingerprint. How does that jive with the narrative "we're all the same." Forget race, we can even tell what your ethnicity is from your genes.
Now, I think your point is that Greeks are not too far away from Turks and Jews are not too far away from Caucasian populations. That's perfectly fine, and does not in any shape of form disprove the notion of Whiteness. Take a look at how most Europeans cluster far and away from everyone else. It's just few groups who lived on the borders of Europe (and thus were not genetically isolated) that are pulled inbetween.
Here is an interesting video regarding Greek genetics:
The author argues that while Greece does have some Middle Eastern genetics (especially J2), they are on the whole genetically and phenotypically closer to Europe while Turks are closer to other Middle Easterners.
There are also differences between "island" Greeks vs "mainland" Greeks.
If genetics is the sole explanation for this then why is it that the Germanic tribes had not invented written language as recently as 2000 years ago ? why were they living in thatch and mud huts when the swarthy mediterraneans were building the parthenon ?
I am not aware of drastic genetic differences between North and South Koreans . Why is one country a developed , affluent society and the other one ... North Korea ?
According to you there should not be a huge difference between the Irish and the Scottish as both of them are " White people ", both "Celtic" populations . Why was one the most literate society in the early modern world and the other a backward agrarian society on the verge of mass starvation ?
I am not aware of a big genetic difference between the North and the South in 19th century US . Why was Massachusetts the seat of learning and industrialization while Alabama a feudal slave society ?
There seems to be this ignorant idea being argued in this thread that populations are genetically static, as if the makeup of a population never changes. Some groups are similar to each other but that doesn't mean that they are exactly the same. Over the course of centuries, populations do change since we have migration and differing selection pressures like war, famine and disease that work to change the group.
Just because a population was advanced thousands of years ago doesn't mean that they'll be as advanced now and vice versa. The structure of any group can and will change as the variation of the group changes. This should be obvious.
Let's just do a simple thought experiment: 100 people are randomly selected from a single ethnic group. Measurements are taken on height, IQ, and genetic susceptibility to various diseases. The group is then randomly split into groups of 50. Do you think that each group will be exactly equal on all measures? Not unless they are all clones. The variation within and between groups will be different since each group is not a carbon copy of each other. Then take each group of 50 and put them in radically different environments like Siberia and Hawaii and come back and check on them 40 generations later. Do you think the descendants of each group will be exactly the same as each other then? Of course not. Though genetically descended from the same ethnic group, each group had selection pressures that changed the genetic variation within each group. This shouldn't be difficult to understand. We do these types of experiments with animals all the time.
FYI - didn't read all this thread and just saw this post after posting my own, but will give you some advice that you should not rely upon blogs (wordpress is a blog) as a good citation for your information. I have a wordpress blog myself and even note on it for people to review the sources I provide and not to rely on the information I write.
Wordpress is fine so long as the author is sourcing all of his or her points. The blog cited above cites to numerous academic studies. It should be mandatory reading for those who actually think race doesn’t exist.
The author argues that while Greece does have some Middle Eastern genetics (especially J2), they are on the whole genetically and phenotypically closer to Europe while Turks are closer to other Middle Easterners.
There are also differences between "island" Greeks vs "mainland" Greeks.
When someone says “J2” I know they don’t know anything about genetics but is some casual reader. No one is “J2” but they’re some subclade thereof. Some of these subclades are European and others are not. What’s more this is just a marker on yDNA. Due to a variety of reasons it cannot be used as an accurate representation of autosomal DNA.
Most of them died to unify the union - not to end slavery. It is a fantasy that many white Americans hold of the idea that a majority even of northern whites wanted slaves freed in the USA - they didn't and if they did a large amount of them wanted black people shipped out of their own country (USA) and didn't want t hem living amongst them. I have over 25 relatives I've identified in my black family w ho fought in the Civil War. The pressure and highlighting of especially black abolitionists (I call them Fredrick Douglass and cohorts) are the ones who pressured Lincoln to change the war from "the union" to slavery. Also they pressured him to let black men become soldiers. There were many white people who allied themselves with black abolitionists of the 20th century, but to act like they would have done anything without black agency is kind of ridiculous. The war itself would never have been fought if not for black people's resistance against slavery. And it was a shame to any free black family to not have all their eligible men fight in that war, which is why I have so many relatives in my own family who fought in the war. Over 80% of the black men in the city I'm from served in the war, only 35% of white men did. Black people were the primary causes of our "freedom" both from chains and from Jim Crow. We are, in essence, the moral compass of America and the protector of "freedom" for all Americans. Our entire culture is based upon this and we have been the only demographic who always has steadfastly protected so-called American principles of freedom and liberty in this nation's history for all Americans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by montydean
Wordpress is fine so long as the author is sourcing all of his or her points. The blog cited above cites to numerous academic studies. It should be mandatory reading for those who actually think race doesn’t exist.
It should still be cautioned not to use a blog as a source. You use the source being cited as the source upon review of it as a valid work.
Also race has been proven not to be biological. However, it does exist as a sociological phenomenon. I think many of you confuse the meaning of biological versus social race. Biologically there are not separate races of people that fit into the 17th-19th century confines of caucasoid, negroid, and mongloid. Nor of white, black, Asian, indigenous. The ancestral community of an individual is their ethnic makeup and it is often centered on the continent that the majority of their ancestors hailed from in the last 500 years, but even using continents there are too many differences within a continent to actually be a different "biological "race" of humans today outside of them. IMO many of you just hold steadfast to the old ideas because it makes you feel good from a sociological perspective or feel threatened from a sociological perspective. The de-coding of the human genome has really thrown the idea of biological race out of the window and it is an antiquated idea. But from a social perspective, it does provide insight into the lives of individuals. This is a great scientific review of this subject: Race: A Biologic or Social Concept
From the link:
Quote:
Race was once thought to be a real biological concept when anthropologists used study of the human skull as a way to justify racial differences and social inequality. Scientists no longer believe there is a biological basis to distinguish racial groups, rather, race is a social, cultural, and/or political construct wherein racial segregation has real consequences on health and health disparities. The biological basis of differential prevalence of disease susceptibility or resistance is due to genetic variations that exist in various racial and ethnic groups. Thus, race as a social concept can be used to categorize populations or groups based on disease susceptibility or resistance, and this offers promise for personalized/precision medicine as it applies to human health.
The link also provides the basis in America for the creation of the social race and it is a pretty good overview of that history and how social race was made up in order to discriminate and enslave non-European people primarily during the infancy of what became America. This era of our history is one of the most fascinating IMO.
Most of them died to unify the union - not to end slavery. It is a fantasy that many white Americans hold of the idea that a majority even of northern whites wanted slaves freed in the USA - they didn't and if they did a large amount of them wanted black people shipped out of their own country (USA) and didn't want t hem living amongst them. I have over 25 relatives I've identified in my black family w ho fought in the Civil War. The pressure and highlighting of especially black abolitionists (I call them Fredrick Douglass and cohorts) are the ones who pressured Lincoln to change the war from "the union" to slavery. Also they pressured him to let black men become soldiers. There were many white people who allied themselves with black abolitionists of the 20th century, but to act like they would have done anything without black agency is kind of ridiculous. The war itself would never have been fought if not for black people's resistance against slavery. And it was a shame to any free black family to not have all their eligible men fight in that war, which is why I have so many relatives in my own family who fought in the war. Over 80% of the black men in the city I'm from served in the war, only 35% of white men did. Black people were the primary causes of our "freedom" both from chains and from Jim Crow. We are, in essence, the moral compass of America and the protector of "freedom" for all Americans. Our entire culture is based upon this and we have been the only demographic who always has steadfastly protected so-called American principles of freedom and liberty in this nation's history for all Americans.
It should still be cautioned not to use a blog as a source. You use the source being cited as the source upon review of it as a valid work.
Also race has been proven not to be biological. However, it does exist as a sociological phenomenon. I think many of you confuse the meaning of biological versus social race. Biologically there are not separate races of people that fit into the 17th-19th century confines of caucasoid, negroid, and mongloid. Nor of white, black, Asian, indigenous. The ancestral community of an individual is their ethnic makeup and it is often centered on the continent that the majority of their ancestors hailed from in the last 500 years, but even using continents there are too many differences within a continent to actually be a different "biological "race" of humans today outside of them. IMO many of you just hold steadfast to the old ideas because it makes you feel good from a sociological perspective or feel threatened from a sociological perspective. The de-coding of the human genome has really thrown the idea of biological race out of the window and it is an antiquated idea. But from a social perspective, it does provide insight into the lives of individuals. This is a great scientific review of this subject: Race: A Biologic or Social Concept
From the link:
The link also provides the basis in America for the creation of the social race and it is a pretty good overview of that history and how social race was made up in order to discriminate and enslave non-European people primarily during the infancy of what became America. This era of our history is one of the most fascinating IMO.
Just curios, wouldn’t believing in biological race explain a lot to you? I mean literally everything from skull size to organs to illness to iq tests to athletic ability, all of it, falls along racial lines. You do see that right?
Most of them died to unify the union - not to end slavery. It is a fantasy that many white Americans hold of the idea that a majority even of northern whites wanted slaves freed in the USA - they didn't and if they did a large amount of them wanted black people shipped out of their own country (USA) and didn't want t hem living amongst them. I have over 25 relatives I've identified in my black family w ho fought in the Civil War. The pressure and highlighting of especially black abolitionists (I call them Fredrick Douglass and cohorts) are the ones who pressured Lincoln to change the war from "the union" to slavery. Also they pressured him to let black men become soldiers. There were many white people who allied themselves with black abolitionists of the 20th century, but to act like they would have done anything without black agency is kind of ridiculous. The war itself would never have been fought if not for black people's resistance against slavery. And it was a shame to any free black family to not have all their eligible men fight in that war, which is why I have so many relatives in my own family who fought in the war. Over 80% of the black men in the city I'm from served in the war, only 35% of white men did. Black people were the primary causes of our "freedom" both from chains and from Jim Crow. We are, in essence, the moral compass of America and the protector of "freedom" for all Americans. Our entire culture is based upon this and we have been the only demographic who always has steadfastly protected so-called American principles of freedom and liberty in this nation's history for all Americans.
Well said. The poster's remarks are frankly, paternalistic and condescending, in a way. I would have been more blunt - he / she shouldn't sprain their wrist patting themselves on the backs for that.
Most of them died to unify the union - not to end slavery. It is a fantasy that many white Americans hold of the idea that a majority even of northern whites wanted slaves freed in the USA - they didn't and if they did a large amount of them wanted black people shipped out of their own country (USA) and didn't want t hem living amongst them. I have over 25 relatives I've identified in my black family w ho fought in the Civil War. The pressure and highlighting of especially black abolitionists (I call them Fredrick Douglass and cohorts) are the ones who pressured Lincoln to change the war from "the union" to slavery. Also they pressured him to let black men become soldiers. There were many white people who allied themselves with black abolitionists of the 20th century, but to act like they would have done anything without black agency is kind of ridiculous. The war itself would never have been fought if not for black people's resistance against slavery. And it was a shame to any free black family to not have all their eligible men fight in that war, which is why I have so many relatives in my own family who fought in the war. Over 80% of the black men in the city I'm from served in the war, only 35% of white men did. Black people were the primary causes of our "freedom" both from chains and from Jim Crow. We are, in essence, the moral compass of America and the protector of "freedom" for all Americans. Our entire culture is based upon this and we have been the only demographic who always has steadfastly protected so-called American principles of freedom and liberty in this nation's history for all Americans.
O.
Your response is exactly why the CW never should have been fought. Not one life was worth losing, let alone 700K. Slavery would have ended peacefully inevitably, as many know.
The arrogance is astonishing.
With that said, Abe Lincoln should have kept to his plan of repatriation every single freed slave to Liberia. It would have saved this country to this day what has been an unending nightmare.
Nevertheless, the point still stands: across the gl9be, over time, none have ever done more to end the practice of slavery.
The actual foundation of America was built on the backs of Africans so WE have more of a right to this land than ANY other racial/ethnic group with the exception being indigenous Americans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kavalier
Your response is exactly why the CW never should have been fought. Not one life was worth losing, let alone 700K. Slavery would have ended peacefully inevitably, as many know.
The arrogance is astonishing.
With that said, Abe Lincoln should have kept to his plan of repatriation every single freed slave to Liberia. It would have saved this country to this day what has been an unending nightmare.
Nevertheless, the point still stands: across the gl9be, over time, none have ever done more to end the practice of slavery.
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.
