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.
You don't have to have Italians or Indians to be a melting pot.
Exactly
Quote:
Russia's melting pot isn't as international as America's but their is a huge diversity of cultures in the former USSR/Russian Empire and that is the cultural melting pot that Russia has.
Quote:
That being said Russia as of 2010 has 1,370 Italians and 4,058 Indians,
I suspect many more ethnic Indians than that (meaning not former Indian citizens per se)
You don't have to have Italians or Indians to be a melting pot. Russia's melting pot isn't as international as America's but their is a huge diversity of cultures in the former USSR/Russian Empire and that is the cultural melting pot that Russia has.
That being said Russia as of 2010 has 1,370 Italians and 4,058 Indians, which isn't a lot, but Russia has many other much larger minorities such as;
And then if you were to add all the ethnic group of the post soviet countries you would get an even more astounding diversity.
There are a LOT of Chinese people there too. Almost every city I have have been in had them in varying numbers. Moscow has Katai Gorod. How many I don't know but considering Chinese seem to be some of the most prolific people on earth you can't omit them. I have seen South American and Mezoamericans there too. Very small in number. Go to any major airport and you'll also see the diversity of people coming and going,.
There are a LOT of Chinese people there too. Almost every city I have have been in had them in varying numbers. Moscow has Katai Gorod. How many I don't know but considering Chinese seem to be some of the most prolific people on earth you can't omit them. I have seen South American and Mezoamericans there too. Very small in number. Go to any major airport and you'll also see the diversity of people coming and going,.
interestingly enough there is no 2010 census data on number of Chinese, however there were 34,577 back in the 2002 census. It is hard to count them since most of them are temporary workers, not full time residents. That being said it's estimated there are around 200,000-400,000.
If the US doesn't 'rule the world', someone else will. It's only natural. Humans, and by extension nations, have been trying to get on top of the food chain for ages.
Like who?
Quote:
Why do you think WWIII will be the last conflict? This is what Einstein had to say about it.
“I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.â€
You know, I remember that were were discussing this particular phrase of his during some lesson at school. As our teachers explained to us ( and I tend to agree,) that the nuclear war is going to be so devastating to the human kind, that the modern civilization will cease to exist. And if any people will survive, they'll return to the stage of primitive people living in the forests; so that their weapons will become again sticks and stones.
Quote:
I don't think WWIII will result in human extinction as a number of people seem to believe, but the devastation wrought will be so catastrophic that much of our current knowledge will be lost. This already happened with WWII, but on a smaller scale.
Well there you go.
Quote:
Whatever happens, politicians on both sides of the fence will still find a way to weasel out of trouble.
This remains to be seen. Particularly under the current circumstances.
Quote:
The slithering cycle is bound to continue. Humanity's destructive ways are never going to end, though I firmly believe that the root cause of the problem is: the poisonous soul that shackles mankind to it's primitive urges while being entrenched in the selfish desire for power and the disregard for the vivid and expressive natural order upon which it has built it's house.
To this very day, man spends fortunes building structures in honor of divinity, yet turns a blind eye to the womb, the greatest temple of life.
If this is the womb I am thinking about, then nah, they actually DO pay attention, starting from the stand of the right forces (that seek their inspiration in the Bible, ) and on and on it goes...
Quote:
I'm going to stop waxing philosophy as I'll be derailing the topic at hand once again.
I don't believe it's a derailing, ( as I sprinkle some subjects with theology too) - I think in such discussions it all simply unavoidable.
"Known as a theological and a political concept "Moscow is the Third Rome", it was formulated in the 15-16th centuries in the Grand Duchy of Moscow.[3]...
After the fall of Tǎrnovo to the Ottoman Turks in 1393, a number of Bulgarian clergymen sought shelter in the Russian lands and transferred the idea of the Third Rome there, which eventually resurfaced in Tver, during the reign of Boris of Tver, when the monk Foma (Thomas) of Tver had written The Eulogy of the Pious Grand Prince Boris Alexandrovich in 1453.[4][5]
Within decades after the capture of Constantinople by Mehmed II of the Ottoman Empire on 29 May 1453, some Eastern Orthodox people were nominating Moscow as the "Third Rome", or the "New Rome".[6] Stirrings of this sentiment began during the reign of Ivan III of Russia who had married Sophia Paleologue. Sophia was a niece of Constantine XI, the last Byzantine emperor. By the rules and laws of inheritance followed by most European monarchies of the time, Ivan could claim that he and his offspring were heirs of the fallen Empire, but the Roman traditions of the empire had never recognized automatic inheritance of the Imperial office.[7]. "
You can read the rest here, although I don't understand the argument of the "inheritance of the Imperial Office."
As I understand, the concept of the "Third Rome" is not exactly "Imperial," but rather theological one.
And from this point of view, I find it rather important, that during the christianization of Russia, the Bizantium was initially reluctant to grant Russia ( with capital in Kiev back then) the autocephalous church, and that was the reason that Russian prince (Vladimir? or whoever was in charge of the process) kept on postponing the agreement, until it has been reached on HIS terms. Which proved to be a very wise decision, because had early Russians accepted submission under the Byzantine Bishop ( or rather the Mitrolopit?,) their church would have ceased to exist with the fall of Byzantium. But since Byzantium passed its banner of Orthodoxy to Russians BEFORE its own demise - then there you have it; Russia became the Third Rome after the Second one (Byzantium) has fallen.
Quote:
Anyone can make such claims. I've heard it being used to describe the US as well.
And what exactly would back up such claim when it comes to the US?
The 3rd Rome idea was born during the pan-slavism movements about 150 or less years ago. Sure some monk coined the term before that but Ivan had no 3rd Rome concept driving his coat of arms or state policy. At best is was used to justify Russia's continued "reconquista" against former Khangates and Ottoman territories. Pan-Slavism brought the end of the Ottoman Empire but it also created events that led to the end of the Russian empire.
Please read again - you manage to turn everything upside down as usual - the concept of the "Third Rome" came about NOT "150 years or less" ago, but back in the 1453, after the fall of Byzantium.
Ukraine itself is partially in existence due to this concept. Part of the lands were taken from Polish and Ottoman rule using the same justification.
I am sorry for all the current attempts of Ukrainians to re-write the history, but wrong again; "part of lands" (if it means Ukrainian lands) were taken from Poland, because Ukrainians were the leftovers of original Russian Orthodox religion, and thus they were suppressed under Catholic Poland.
And THAT's the reason Ukrainians asked for protection from Russian Tzar ( whichever was ruling Russia at that point.)
You can read about the prolonged Russian-Turkish wars and the reasons behind it here ( HINT; In 1684 Russia joined European Holy League,) and there you have it.
Russia, China... Any country with considerable power. The US doesn't have a monopoly on this kind of thought. The only difference is that it became the dominant power in the world at a time when technology enabled it to exert power in a way that was unimaginable in past centuries.
Quote:
You know, I remember that were were discussing this particular phrase of his during some lesson at school. As our teachers explained to us ( and I tend to agree,) that the nuclear war is going to be so devastating to the human kind, that the modern civilization will cease to exist. And if any people will survive, they'll return to the stage of primitive people living in the forests; so that their weapons will become again sticks and stones.
Well there you go.
That much is a given considering that atomic/hydrogen bombs today are far more devastating than those used to end WW2.
Quote:
This remains to be seen. Particularly under the current circumstances.
What I meant by this is that those who have power have the resources to safeguard themselves in the event of a catastrophe.
Quote:
If this is the womb I am thinking about, then nah, they actually DO pay attention, starting from the stand of the right forces (that seek their inspiration in the Bible, ) and on and on it goes...
This was actually meant to be a direct interpretation. It had nothing to do with the previous quote, but was meant to illustrate human frailty.
What I meant to say was that humans spend fortunes to build temples dedicated to the gods they worship ( givers of life), but feel no remorse when engaging in rape. The womb being the giver of life, is the most sacred temple.
Quote:
I don't believe it's a derailing, ( as I sprinkle some subjects with theology too) - I think in such discussions it all simply unavoidable.
As long as the mods don't interfere, I'm more than happy to discuss different topics at length.
"Known as a theological and a political concept "Moscow is the Third Rome", it was formulated in the 15-16th centuries in the Grand Duchy of Moscow.[3]...
After the fall of Tǎrnovo to the Ottoman Turks in 1393, a number of Bulgarian clergymen sought shelter in the Russian lands and transferred the idea of the Third Rome there, which eventually resurfaced in Tver, during the reign of Boris of Tver, when the monk Foma (Thomas) of Tver had written The Eulogy of the Pious Grand Prince Boris Alexandrovich in 1453.[4][5]
Within decades after the capture of Constantinople by Mehmed II of the Ottoman Empire on 29 May 1453, some Eastern Orthodox people were nominating Moscow as the "Third Rome", or the "New Rome".[6] Stirrings of this sentiment began during the reign of Ivan III of Russia who had married Sophia Paleologue. Sophia was a niece of Constantine XI, the last Byzantine emperor. By the rules and laws of inheritance followed by most European monarchies of the time, Ivan could claim that he and his offspring were heirs of the fallen Empire, but the Roman traditions of the empire had never recognized automatic inheritance of the Imperial office.[7]. "
You can read the rest here, although I don't understand the argument of the "inheritance of the Imperial Office."
As I understand, the concept of the "Third Rome" is not exactly "Imperial," but rather theological one.
And from this point of view, I find it rather important, that during the christianization of Russia, the Bizantium was initially reluctant to grant Russia ( with capital in Kiev back then) the autocephalous church, and that was the reason that Russian prince (Vladimir? or whoever was in charge of the process) kept on postponing the agreement, until it has been reached on HIS terms. Which proved to be a very wise decision, because had early Russians accepted submission under the Byzantine Bishop ( or rather the Mitrolopit?,) their church would have ceased to exist with the fall of Byzantium. But since Byzantium passed its banner of Orthodoxy to Russians BEFORE its own demise - then there you have it; Russia became the Third Rome after the Second one (Byzantium) has fallen.
And what exactly would back up such claim when it comes to the US?
(Your turn. )
I'll merge these two points. What you're looking at is the literal interpretation of these events. The allusion to the US being the equivalent of the New Rome come from different segments of society, but are metaphorical in nature.
It can allude to the fact that Rome was viewed as the center of Western Civilization for a considerable period of time, and it's fall (the Western one) brought in an age of cultural and social regression. It took over a 1000 years for Western Europe to regain a foothold.
It can also be viewed as a warning sign of what happens when one has two much power and how internal strife caused it's downfall.
I'll merge these two points. What you're looking at is the literal interpretation of these events. The allusion to the US being the equivalent of the New Rome come from different segments of society, but are metaphorical in nature.
It can allude to the fact that Rome was viewed as the center of Western Civilization for a considerable period of time, and it's fall (the Western one) brought in an age of cultural and social regression. It took over a 1000 years for Western Europe to regain a foothold.
It can also be viewed as a warning sign of what happens when one has two much power and how internal strife caused it's downfall.
Come on Milky....the US establishment refers to itself as the "indispensable country" all the time.....
Come on Milky....the US establishment refers to itself as the "indispensable country" all the time.....
The New Rome references don't come from the government, but from different journalists and individual commentators.
It can be either interpreted in a positive light or a negative one, depending on how one perceives events. The Roman Empire brought about lots of positive developments across the breath of it's civilization. New infrastructure and social codes were being set up, some of them imported from the Greeks or other groups, but nevertheless instrumental.
Roads, engineers, schools, spread of Christianity in later years came about.
However, by the time of the 4th Century, it had split into, with the western half going through serious strife and internal abuse of power.
This is where one can draw parallels with the US. You're a great country that has contributed so much to social and technological development over the years, but at the same time have become complacent due to your unique place at the top of the food chain.
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.
)
