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.
While I agree with what you're trying to say as you've said it better than I could have, one problem;
How was America homogeneous? Cherokee, Seminole, Blackfoot, Chictaw, Sioux, Cree among all the others were distinct groups with their own cultures.
What I mean is that they were isolated from the world, "not multicultural" or "multicontinental".
If America have had contact with Eurasia 2000 years ago, had they been immunized and knew about iron and horses....
Just as Rome, what made Rome superior was that its capacity to "civilize" hundreds of different tribes, to tap eastern culture and former empires.....that's why they were superior to "barbarians".
Take consolidated nations in Latin America that are still in formation, those nations have better prospects because they won't be tore down by ethnic wars in the future, or divided as will probably happen with the US.
Isolated and inbred cultures do disappear with time, a law of life.
What is superior, an inbred cockel spaniel or a mutt?
What I mean is that they were isolated from the world, "not multicultural" or "multicontinental".
If America have had contact with Eurasia 2000 years ago, had they been immunized and knew about iron and horses....
Just as Rome, what made Rome superior was that its capacity to "civilize" hundreds of different tribes, to tap eastern culture and former empires.....that's why they were superior to "barbarians".
Take consolidated nations in Latin America that are still in formation, those nations have better prospects because they won't be tore down by ethnic wars in the future, or divided as will probably happen with the US.
Isolated and inbred cultures do disappear with time, a law of life.
What is superior, an inbred cockel spaniel or a mutt?
an inbred cocker spaniel.
the leading cultures the past 1000 years have either been european or east asian.
If you wish to argue against such a system then that is entirely up to you, however the system and laws as they stand are neutral in such respect and do not therfore support monoculturalism.
This is a lovely fantasy. But I am seventy-eight years old and I have seen, and experienced, a very great many things growing up and living in the U.S. that make the statement I have put in bold laughable and pathetic.
Just think for a moment of Thomas Jefferson's noble words for public consumption, and then examine the extreme opposite in how he managed his affairs and what his thoughts were in his private moments. And life in the U.S. has trudged a long way from Jefferson and still is working at making true the statement above.
What I mean is that they were isolated from the world, "not multicultural" or "multicontinental".
If America have had contact with Eurasia 2000 years ago, had they been immunized and knew about iron and horses....
Just as Rome, what made Rome superior was that its capacity to "civilize" hundreds of different tribes, to tap eastern culture and former empires.....that's why they were superior to "barbarians".
Take consolidated nations in Latin America that are still in formation, those nations have better prospects because they won't be tore down by ethnic wars in the future, or divided as will probably happen with the US.
Isolated and inbred cultures do disappear with time, a law of life.
What is superior, an inbred cockel spaniel or a mutt?
Ok, you're speaking more of racial diversity. Where does Africa fit in this?
This is not correct. Nature favors diversity and those organisms with diverse genes are genetically more fit.
???
explain then, why africa (agruably the most ethnically diverse continent on earth) is also the most undeveloped and retarded. "survivial of the fittest" is one thing, but in the more human, non-animalistic, civilized parts of the world you're kind of useless.
the leading cultures the past 1000 years have either been european or east asian.
explain then, why africa (agruably the most ethnically diverse continent on earth) is also the most undeveloped and retarded. "survivial of the fittest" is one thing, but in the more human, non-animalistic, civilized parts of the world you're kind of useless.
the leading cultures the past 1000 years have either been european or east asian.
What???? I think your wrong, even today pretty much the leading cultures are European and East Asian.... Nobody is saying I want to move to Saudi Arabia, or kazakstand, or Somalia, or the Dominican Republic. Everyone okay not everyone but the majority of people want to go to Germany, Paris, Canda, China, Korea, or Japan, besides that the only place people want to go is Dubai. And I think that's because architecture and tourist activities not because the culture.
Ok, you're speaking more of racial diversity. Where does Africa fit in this?
I'm not speaking about racial diversity, but cultural diversity. All the racialist stuff is recent, dates from the romantic period 170 years ago.
Romans did not care about race because their goal was to take people from their "tribes" and melt them into citizens. A republic, such as the roman republic, was based on laws.
I wonder how can a person say that during the last 1000 years most powerful cultures were Europeans, totally forgetting Chinese, Persian, Mongols, Indians, Iranians and Arab.
In world history, western Europeans are barbarians. The first city was built 3000 years ago, when there were monumental civilizations in Egypt, Mesopotamia, India, Persia, China, etc.
When the first Phoenicians arrived to western Mediterranean shores 3000 years ago, their impact was similar to Columbus arrival.
Africa, ancient Egypt is Africa, Carthague is Africa, Roman Numidia is Africa - the richest area of the Roman empire composed by assimilated locals.
Last edited by joachim1000; 05-21-2016 at 10:18 AM..
explain then, why africa (agruably the most ethnically diverse continent on earth) is also the most undeveloped and retarded. "survivial of the fittest" is one thing, but in the more human, non-animalistic, civilized parts of the world you're kind of useless.
the leading cultures the past 1000 years have either been european or east asian.
Well, if you're not aware of, or don't want to acknowledge the fact that Africa's current borders were not drawn by Africans and the history that goes with that, you have already made up your mind so there is no discussion to be had.
I'm not speaking about racial diversity, but cultural diversity. All the racialist stuff is recent, dates from the romantic period 170 years ago.
Romans did not care about race because their goal was to take people from their "tribes" and melt them into citizens. A republic, such as the roman republic, was based on laws.
I wonder how can a person say that during the last 1000 years most powerful cultures were Europeans, totally forgetting Chinese, Persian, Mongols, Indians, Iranians and Arab.
In world history, western Europeans are barbarians. The first city was built 3000 years ago, when there were monumental civilizations in Egypt, Mesopotamia, India, Persia, China, etc.
When the first Phoenicians arrived to western Mediterranean shores 3000 years ago, their impact was similar to Columbus arrival.
Africa, ancient Egypt is Africa, Carthague is Africa, Roman Numidia is Africa - the richest area of the Roman empire composed by assimilated locals.
In what way were the Americas homogeneous?
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.
