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.
Starting with the Angles and Saxons themselves, they were backward, mystical, pagan, uncivilized and underdeveloped in the truest senses of those words. They had the longstanding misfortune to occupy and settle Britain, an island.
For centuries, this insulation kept the Anglos far more underdeveloped than their Continental European neighbors. But by the rise of global capitalism and the ascendancy of the Dutch as the pre-eminent global power by the 17th century, the Anglos were isolated on an island now to their benefit. So while a relatively small Dutch population continuously bore the brunt of continental warfare with its rivals, the only way to truly dominate the Anglos was to have a powerful navy that could cross the English Channel.
Due to the sheer capital investment of a true global navy (an accomplishment reserved exclusively for the world's leading economy in every respective century since the rise of capitalism) only the Dutch could afford one. For a time the Dutch were able to assert supremacy over the Anglos. However the War of Spanish Succession depleted Dutch economic and military power enough to allow it to maintain its developed economy but end its reign as the dominant global force.
Thus the torch was passed to Britain. Although initially underdeveloped with a large, impoverished, largely agrarian population, the British were able to use its surplus population to be exported to far flung corners of the globe to procure the bounty of natural resources that would fuel its rising industrial economy.
You do not need a history lesson here. The British were able to use its naval supremacy (although they started out as pirates!) to protect their merchant fleets and colonize corners of the globe in what are now the U.S., Canada, South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand. These initially were remote, isolated areas that no other capitalist power could hope to possess without the massive economy and navy Britain had.
What was the issue? That same geographic virtue that the isolation the English Channel provided to Britain itself? Well the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans were the English Channel on steroids. History shows us for as powerful a navy that Britain had, it was only a matter of time that the backward, underdeveloped Americans could not be easily corralled by land-based infantry. Despite Britain's 200+ years of naval dominance, their military record on land-based conflicts is atrocious. The average British garrison could be taken down by Boers with muskets, Native Americans with bows and arrows, or Southern Bantus with spears.
But that was immaterial because none of these underdeveloped populations could even hope to engage in the type of global trade necessary to become independently wealthy because the British controlled maritime commerce. However, the Germans in the 20th century would end the mystique of the British Navy with unterseeboots that could go under Anglo warships and a Luftwaffe that could fly over them.
But the United States is buffered by the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. We are isolated enough that no country in the world could ever hope to dismantle our infrastructure save the use of ICBMs which of course would lead to the mutually-assured destruction of the Russians or Chinese that launched first. It is immaterial that China could mobilize an army of 50 million infantry. How would they get here? Who has the aircraft carriers to get enough fighter jets even close enough to make a dent in the American infrastructure?
Modern global powers, with Americans in the lead, can only have their feelings severely hurt by terrorist attacks. With American naval supremacy in which every other country is hopelessly behind, occupational invasions of one developed country by another (like we saw up through WWII) are a non-starter.
So Anglos are not smarter, more civilized, or "blessed" with better governments. They were bestowed with the advantages of "true" Jeffersonian Republicanism i.e. if you are in the middle of nowhere surrounded by wilderness, you must clear it, become a land owner, produce for yourself and essentially be your own government. The descendants of the British (Americans, Canadians, Australians, South Africans, New Zealanders) historically occupied isolated, large land areas with an abundance of natural resources that were difficult to get to by any country without a powerful navy (essentially everyone besides Britain).
The British themselves can credit the Dutch (see William & Mary, the Glorious Revolution, and high taxes) for even being able to develop and maintain a navy in the first place. The Dutch certainly weren't Anglos. The colonies of the Anglos (of course notably the Americans) however were able to use their geographies that had the same competitive advantages as Britain, thus greater capacity to develop their economies and relative self-sufficiency (or at least indispensability in a global economy).
This is full of inaccurate rubbish! One of the very worst posts I've ever come across, nonsense stated as fact!
This is full of inaccurate rubbish! One of the very worst posts I've ever come across, nonsense stated as fact!
I for one would be interested in reading an actual critique. I have problems with certain dates i.e., Dutch 17th century dominance for example but I think the overall trust of the comment is correct.
You can't "prove" anything, other than a mathematical theorem.
I am just telling you what I've learned. I've been studying and reading about cultural anthropology since college, which for me started 44 years ago. However, I am not a recognized expert on the subject.
This is full of inaccurate rubbish! One of the very worst posts I've ever come across, nonsense stated as fact!
I did not think it was a bad post. It gives a little more credit to the Dutch than I would have, but it is in complete grammatical sentences, is well reasoned, and expresses a point of view. Nobody *knows* the answer to the question in this thread, so different points of view should not only be tolerated but welcomed.
You can't "prove" anything, other than a mathematical theorem.
I am just telling you what I've learned. I've been studying and reading about cultural anthropology since college, which for me started 44 years ago. However, I am not a recognized expert on the subject.
Dr. Ariella Oppenheim and her team at Tel Aviv University released their study which found that the “Jews” were mainly Khazars, from Khazaria, a Caucasus country which is now called Kazakhstan, Georgia, and other names. The Khazarians converted from pagan religions to talmudic Judaism after the 8th century, but of course, racially they remain Khazars.
The Khazars were and are a genome that is mainly Turkish and Mongolian blood.
Roman historian Tacitus wrote that many of his time believed that the Jews "were a race of Ethiopian origin."
I did not think it was a bad post. It gives a little more credit to the Dutch than I would have, but it is in complete grammatical sentences, is well reasoned, and expresses a point of view. Nobody *knows* the answer to the question in this thread, so different points of view should not only be tolerated but welcomed.
According to Zondervan's Compact Bible Dictionary listed under Ham it defines as such:
He became the progenitor of the dark races; not the Negroes, but the Egyptians, Ethiopians, Libyans and Canaanites.
The "compact Bible dictionary" can "define" all it wants, but nowhere in the Bible there is such verse.
So if Ham became the "progenitor of the dark races," nowhere does it say that along with Egyptians, Ethiopians, Libyans and what's not he was not a progenitor of the "Negroes" as well (in spite of all the negative connotation that this word has in the US, it refers first of all to the inhabitants of the the river Niger region I would guess.)
Quote:
Such information that was provided by this dictionary is very important to understand; that Ham is the father of the dark races (Africans) but NOT the NEGROES. *This could be proven to be true according to the word
As I already said - no, it can't. Otherwise, point me at the verse in the Bible pls.
Dr. Ariella Oppenheim and her team at Tel Aviv University released their study which found that the “Jews” were mainly Khazars, from Khazaria, a Caucasus country which is now called Kazakhstan, Georgia, and other names. The Khazarians converted from pagan religions to talmudic Judaism after the 8th century, but of course, racially they remain Khazars.
The Khazars were and are a genome that is mainly Turkish and Mongolian blood.
Roman historian Tacitus wrote that many of his time believed that the Jews "were a race of Ethiopian origin."
They aren't there were problems with their source populatons that were used as proxy's for the khazar's namely Armenians, and Gerogians from the south Caucasus which do not represent the ancient Khazars accurately.
You cherry picked a poorly done study. This link references a plethora of studies if you want to be intellecually honest then it behooves you to read the orignal studies and look at the facts in their entirety.
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.
