|
Post by Human on Mar 24, 2005 12:40:24 GMT -5
as far as i know, even before indo european invasion, India had great civilizations (Mohenjo Daro or something is an example which comes to my mind), they created their own religion, more than one, to be more precise (budhism, hinduism, etc etc), invented their many different writings systems, and gave us those algarism we use on day to day basis. they dont think they are superior or something. they dont think they have larger brains or something.
on the other hand, you have the northern europeans (germans/english/irish/scandinavians) who are in an eternal love affair with themselves. theyve got bigger brains, they are the really intelligent folks, and all the other big civilizations around (like egypt, mesopotamia and hindu) existed because of some delusional imaginary 'nordic elite' or something.
as a matter of fact, all scientific contributions made by the northern europeans listed above are not any older than 500 years old (we could start with Gutenberg von Mainz).
the basic elements of their civilizations are alien:
agricultural & urban revolutions began in the middle east; alphabet was invented by the so much desecrated semitic (phoenicians) and then transmitted through the greek roman route to northern europe, who only around the time of roman conquest came into contact with proper writing; only fairly recently they came in contact with a higher sort of religion (christianity etc); before that they used to practice human sacrifices, worship gods just like the also desecrated native americans, had no temples built whatsoever (germanics are reported to take their religious rituals outdoors, around the waterfalls, e.g); this religion was also imported and led to unprecedented moral advancements in the europeans, so much so that one can admit europeans later helped other folks (in spite of their plundering, violence and destruction) to abandon human sacrificies and place more value on human life.
writing/religion/intellectuality (from the greeks).
all imported!
where is the superiority of Northern Europeans then???
if i were to say who are superior here id say the Hindu, the brownies, are brainier, taking into consideration all things said above, and their much longer civilized historical past.
they do not seem to think so however (the Hindu). it only shows how intelligent they can be vc northern europeans, considering including the fact that northern europeans, though only fairly recently got properly civilized, consider themselves the best (see skadi, blond societies, etc etc).
i think theyre all humans anyway, but some FACTS have to be TOLD, otherwise people will simply absorb some colonial ideas and not be critical whatsoever.
|
|
|
Post by Human on Mar 24, 2005 12:46:51 GMT -5
fascinating 'brainy' hindu mathematics. theyve invented algorisms, zero concept (though the mayas and other, but NOT northenr europeans), and i remember baskhara from school, then theres Ramanujan, that brownie genius who impressed England (Hardy got crazy about such a prodigious), etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc. their mathematics are thousands of years old. theyre not like northern european mathematics, which started only fairly recently, and mostly because the Romans conquered a part of them and taught them some valuable things. General Hindu Mathematics overview: www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/Indian_mathematics.htmlThe Indian nummerals: It is worth beginning this article with the same quote from Laplace which we give in the article Overview of Indian mathematics: www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/Indian_numerals.html
|
|
Kame
Full Member
Posts: 122
|
Post by Kame on Mar 24, 2005 13:01:02 GMT -5
Yeah, I cannot understand that attitude for the life of me. Maybe it's because of insecurity? Hindu's don't have to boast about anything, their accomplishments are plain for everyone to see. Meanwhile most of northern europe's accomplishments are fairly recent, and would not be so without the intervention of groups such as romans and greeks who civilized them.
Though, Im sure eventually they would have developed the social complexity neccessary to begin civilized societies. Some african groups developed social complexity from the 800 A.D. to 1400, not to mention the nubians who were civilized thousands of years before that. LOL, nordicists hate blacks the most,say they have'nt contirbuted anything, yet they became before civilized before their ancestors did!
|
|
|
Post by quartermetis on Mar 24, 2005 13:23:38 GMT -5
Does "proving" one group is "better" than another change anything? Did the sky all of a sudden turn green, or did war all of a sudden siezed to exists? Did Einstein's theory of relativity, the Egyptian and Mayan Pyramids, the ancient kindgdoms of Mali, or the Roman Empire just all of a sudden disappear? Aside from a personal ego boost what to these arguements of superiority of inferiority really accomplish?
|
|
|
Post by Human on Mar 24, 2005 15:04:35 GMT -5
Does "proving" one group is "better" than another change anything? Did the sky all of a sudden turn green, or did war all of a sudden siezed to exists? Did Einstein's theory of relativity, the Egyptian and Mayan Pyramids, the ancient kindgdoms of Mali, or the Roman Empire just all of a sudden disappear? Aside from a personal ego boost what to these arguements of superiority of inferiority really accomplish? it is not about claiming some are better than others (please read it again). as i said, i think were all humans and are fundamentally fairly similar... this is about PLACING THINGS INTO REALISTIC PERSPECTIVE. so much bulshit written and said and so many bad things have happened around this northern european supremacist delusion. WHO ARE THE ONES WHO CLAIM TO BE BRAINIER, TO BE THE 'BUILDERS OF CIVILIZATIONS', etc ?? as far as i know, this is unheard of amongst Hindu and East Asians. maybe some do it, after all it happens everywhere. but in the delusional and mass scale northern europeans sense of superiority claims they dont, SURELY NOT. here is another interesting link on their mathematical contributions: www.geocities.com/dipalsarvesh/mathematics.html
|
|
|
Post by CooCooCachoo on Mar 24, 2005 22:20:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by mike2 on Mar 25, 2005 0:34:15 GMT -5
The non-Caucasoid element among the Indians is primarily the Veddoid element, which is of Australoid affinity. It's interesting that a people with racial ties to "primitive" Australian aborigines contributed to a civilization that bloomed at a time when blond northerners were still chewing on rocks and eating raw meat. I exaggerate, I know, but I completely agree with the spirit of this post.
|
|
|
Post by nordicyouth on Mar 25, 2005 3:36:03 GMT -5
One can make the claim that Northern Europeans had a late start purely by examining climatic evidence. The agricultural revolution occurred first in fertile regions such as Mesopotamia, Eastern and Southern Asia, and perhaps even parts of Africa, although my knowledge of Africa is cursory at best, focusing on their modern not ancient history. In 1500, when the centres of power on Earth i.e. military and economic were Europe, the Ottoman Empire, Mogul India (conquered by the Irano-Afghans), and China*, Europe seemed the loser of them all: culturally (low), politically (fragmented), economically (relatively little trade; feudalism), and militarily. However, the centralized bureaucracies of the Chinese, Ottomans, and Moguls, enabled inept rulers to single-handedly ruin their empires; coupled with this was the lack of competition, as the empire's were relatively stable and orderly. Europe however, was fragmented, unable to unify itself due to geopolitical barriers, be they forests, mountains, rivers, or stubborn warlords. Indeed, not even the transnational force of religion could garner more loyalty than petty provincialism, as indicated during the 30 Years War, when France supported the Protestant forces. There was competition, because each county, duchy, and kingdom strove to: (a) achieve total self-determination, and (b) conquer all others. These conflicts spurred on technological and financial developments that enabled Europe to reign supreme over the vast majority of the globe. This result is due in large part to Northern Europeans. Why? Firstly, Southern Europe i.e. Iberia, Italy, Greece, and even France, were used to the centralized bureaucracy of the Roman Empire, a hallmark of the great non-European civilizations. Southern Europe had revolved around Rome until it fell to the Visigoths; the Northern and Central Europeans were far less progressive i.e. superstitious, tribal, unsophisticated, and in the case of the Teutons, warlike. It was difficult to distinguish between Central and Northern Europeans, as both were barbarians beyond the reach of Rome (excepting the Celtic Britons and some Germanic tribes), differentiated more by climate than subrace. After the fall of the Western Roman Empire, not even the Byzantines could reclaim it, for it had been divided amongst various Germanic tribes to form the successor states of West Francia, East Francia, Lombardy, the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, etc. While Roman and Greek influence (and that of Ireland for having preserved their knowledge ) is beyond doubt, the barbarism of the Northern Europeans esp. Germanic tribes essentially created the polities that would later constitute modern Western Europe. The political and social fragmentation they wrought prevented any one empire or leader from controlling all of Europe, essentially they unwittingly set up a balance of power. Germanic political thought is behind the concept of a constitutional monarchy, parliament, England's Common Law, sovereignty; a major distinguishing element being "innocent before proven guilty," a tenet lacking in any country accepting of Roman Law, which holds the reverse. Obviously, the Anglo-Saxons did not pause in the midst of a pillage to conceive that - 'auctoritas' is derived from the nation, represented by the monarch, not from God or the Papacy, and delegated as 'potestas' to the bureaucracts of the monarch - they blundered into it. This is not to 'toot the horn' of Nordicists, it is simply to demonstrate that in this particular case, Northern European barbarism created a political situation that caused Europe to achieve, when other regions simply stagnated. And were it not for Frankish forces, Muslim forces may well have claimed Italy and France, and the Magyars may well have continued their harassment of the settled peoples. *For further information, one may refer to Paul M. Kennedy's 'The Rise And Fall of the Great Powers: Economic Change and Military Conflict from 1500 - 2000.' One may also want to refer to it before refuting the above points. For those challenging me on the Middle Ages, I want them to know I have a strong background in the Early and Late Middle Ages, as well as Medieval political theory; and our professor personally transcribed all the major documents from Latin to English or German or French to English.
|
|
|
Post by nordicyouth on Mar 25, 2005 3:58:24 GMT -5
I do believe that some 'proponents' of Southern Europe (Mediterranean anthropological type), not in any shape or form representative of its inhabitants, find it incredulous that Scandinavia, whose history consists of the movement of Teutons into Central Europe, the Viking raids, a limited number of conflicts, and pacifism and social democracy in the modern era, has ended up as one of the best regions on Earth in which to live.
After the Roman Empire fell, the Italians were never more a successful warrior people, and today are known for their provincialism, political instability, and stagnation*. The Greeks ended up with rule by 'The Colonels,' and a militarized state not unlike its bitter enemy Turkey*. The Persians ended up regressing during the Islamic Revolution to an economic state not unlike that of Palestine, with a theocracy in power, despite their ancient cultural heritage.
Past success does not guarantee present or future success for a nation-state. Poland at one time had the most populous empire in Europe, extending from Eastern Germany to Transylvania to Moscow. Poland arguably saved Vienna from destruction by the Turks, and indeed consistently prevented the Ottomans from increasing their foothold in Europe. It also defeated a huge Soviet invasion, which was poised in the 1920s to capture 'Red Berlin' and create Lenin's dreamed-of Communist super-state centred in Germany. But what is it known for? Losing to the Germans in W.W. I.I. Now, Hitler's Aryan race has to contend with a huge minority of true Aryans (i.e. Turks), and Poland is the most ethnically pure country in Europe according to the 1997 Oxford World Atlas. Poetic justice perhaps?
The point is, is that the idea of civilization has changed to mean democracy, a welfare state, economic competitiveness, health and fitness, prosperity, and cultural vibrancy, not the acreage of an empire or the percentile of the population that is armed.
According to these conceptions, Northern Europe is at the height of global civilization at present. Even in medieval times, Germania was supposed to be the arbiter of Europe. Due to other factors, it could not take its place for well over a millennium, and by then the focus of power was shifting to the American and Russian heartlands.
I don't believe Northern Europeans consider themselves superior. According to the EUMC, Greeks should top that list. But any people at the top search for ways to explain why they are there, and if India was the world superpower, then this forum would be about who was more Indian or not.
|
|
|
Post by mike2 on Mar 25, 2005 4:23:35 GMT -5
Every civilization has its golden age. The Greeks never get tired of fighting each other. I for one think if they actually developed a united Hellenic identity before the Roman conquest of Hellas instead of all the city-state squabbling, then Greece might have been a major world power in modern times.
|
|
|
Post by Human on Mar 27, 2005 12:48:49 GMT -5
on Mar 24th, 2005, 10:20pm, CooCooCachoo wrote:http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/05_01/Indo-European.shtml I agree Indians are a superior breed. But I'm afraid it's partly a breed that IS European. (Europeans with a tan.) hey the comparison drawn above is between northern europeans vs hindu people, not caucasoids vs non caucasoids or something. i got inclined to make this comparison because i dont see Mediterranean Men Societies, Brownie Men Societites, but Blonde Societies )as well as Northern European supremacists sites based on their phenotypical appearance) are all over, and for a long time! sure, indo europeans came to india, as they did to europe (again native europeans, northern ones, failing to invent something by themselves, in the past). anyway, though, long before they came to India there were already many advanced civilizations in the area, with their own writing and religion systems, with big towns and temples (get some information on Mohenjo Daro), stuff you would NOT find in Northern Europe at that time (maybe some stone monuments, but who does not know how to make megaliths? at the age of 5, with enough will, i could do some! the indo europeans came not from Northern Europe. they may have come from a wide range of places, from central asia to iran, or even turkey, etc, etc. even if they had, they were not THE hindu people element, they only constituted A part of it. what about the australoid element amongst the Hindu?as far as I know Ramanujan came from a lower cast from the South (from Erode, around 400km south of Madras: look at a map!). and there are many other racial elements than your 'magic' indo european thing, many of which, if not all, are traditionally seen by the Northern Europeans as 'mud'. take a look at this mtDNA map, and focus on the mtDNA of India (im sure youll be able to make some valid conclusions by yourself): img207.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img207&image=mtdnahaplogroupsmapa7ac.jpg
|
|
|
Post by captainusa1 on Mar 28, 2005 0:20:18 GMT -5
I've read several of your posts, and you sound like you have some kind of anti-White agenda. I don't know if you do or don't. It just seems like you take every opportunity to slam White people in some way. I apologize if this isn't the case.
|
|
|
Post by Human on Mar 28, 2005 6:26:33 GMT -5
I've read several of your posts, and you sound like you have some kind of anti-White agenda. I don't know if you do or don't. It just seems like you take every opportunity to slam White people in some way. I apologize if this isn't the case. you are wrong. there is no agenda whatsoever. the fact that you may not like what i wrote does not mean i do have an agenda. this is the 2nd time you say so. i did not 'make up' any of the facts mentioned above. theyre the truth! if you believe them or not, if you are too much eurocentric, thats your problem!
|
|
Samhain
Full Member
Diplomacy is the art of letting someone have your way.
Posts: 230
|
Post by Samhain on Mar 28, 2005 7:22:33 GMT -5
you are wrong. there is no agenda whatsoever. the fact that you may not like what i wrote does not mean i do have an agenda. this is the 2nd time you say so. i did not 'make up' any of the facts mentioned above. theyre the truth! if you believe them or not, if you are too much eurocentric, thats your problem! Actually, one may commend your ability to glorify other civilisations, especially those you have obviously no connection to (black altruism), but if what you say is true, then is suggests that those same populations have either regressed, or have become stuck for the last several thousand years whilst Europeans have gone on in strides. No civilisation can complete with that of the Greco-Roman foundations, purely because western society emulates it even now. Our civilisation, which began with Greco-Romans is still on-going. Other civilisations have since died out, we're still living it today and that's what so amazing about it. All European groups have had something to contribute because they accept the teachings of Greco-Romans. Also, all this amazing technology that western society has benefitted from in the past 700 years or so didn't just spotaneously spring up, it's creation goes back every generations and links to some European figurehead behind it. Somewhere in the Highlands of Scotland:
|
|
Samhain
Full Member
Diplomacy is the art of letting someone have your way.
Posts: 230
|
Post by Samhain on Mar 28, 2005 7:33:22 GMT -5
In addressing the theme of northern Europeans versus Hindu, which northern European groups are you referring to? Scandinavians? Britain, Holland, Germany and France? Which? If you include Great Britain, I can take you on with that one! We can compare British contributions to Hindu quite easily.
And no, you cannot go applying timescales, for somewhere like Britain wasn't even populated until as late as 7000BC, and even then it was a handful of people. There's no reason why an area that's been populated for several thousand years and with hundreds of thousands, sorry millions of people should take so long to come up with anything worthwhile, whilst a small group of a few hundred build atronomical wonders, yes, the Megaliths, almost as they inhabit the place.
|
|