northern europeans vs hindu people

[topdog]

Trog said:

Omittion alert ****


"Formerly the British protectorate of Bechuanaland, Botswana "

Most of modern day African countries are former protectorates and colonies of Europe, what point are you trying to make, that Europeans are responsible for the African success story called Botswana? Mind you, you missed the part of the citation that stated Botswana was one of the poorest nations in the world at the beginning of their independence. If Europeans are responsible for Botswana success, why was it poor when it became independent, but became rich ***AFTER*** independence? As usual your line of argument is debunked.

[topdog]

Trog said:

I already said European input does not count. This excludes hotels built for business men from Europe, Japan, Arabia and America. Apart from being a neighbour of South Africa, this area in particular has been under British rule, thus the very British-looking hotel and even 'wheelie bins.' (Even note the BP sign). Yes an image os suburbia in Africa is really astounding.

It doesn't matter, you words were quote:

Communities in Africa, Middle East, in fact everywhere south of the equator are living very much like they did several thousand years ago and they don't appear all that advanced to me, indeed many are still primitive.

So input, be it from Europe or El Segundo, makes no difference in this matter, the point is that Africans are not living the same way they were living thousands of years ago and to reinterate my point again, most of Botswana's success came ***AFTER*** British colonial rule, not under it. Botswana was among the poorest nations in the world during colonial rule and at the very beginning of its independence, so its success cannot be attributed to Europeans. You can argue all you want about European influence but that does not change the fact that Botswana's success ins the work of native Africans.

[alexandrian]

Topdog said:

The ancients never thought of such of thing[one big 'Med' race] so why are people today chest pounding about something the ancients never cared about?

The peoples of the ancient Mediterranean did at times see themselves as having a common identity and belonging to a common world. That "world" was the Mediterranean. It's not just a coincidence that all great ancient civilizations were Mediterranean ones (i.e. on the Mediterranean)

Egypt, Sumer, MInoan Crete, Greece, Phoenicia, Carthage, Assyrians, Hebrews, Canaanites, Babylonians, Romans, and the list goes on....

[topdog]

Alexandrian said:

The peoples of the ancient Mediterranean did at times see themselves as having a common identity and belonging to a common world. That "world" was the Mediterranean. It's not just a coincidence that all great ancient civilizations were Mediterranean ones (i.e. on the Mediterranean)

Egypt, Sumer, MInoan Crete, Greece, Phoenicia, Carthage, Assyrians, Hebrews, Canaanites, Babylonians, Romans, and the list goes on....

***WRONG***. none of those peoples thought of themselves as one big 'Mediterranean family' They were all nationalistic and never saw themselves as having any common identity. Post some evidence to prove your point but do not commence to chest-pounding about Mediterraneans.

[mike2]

Topdog said:

***WRONG***. none of those peoples thought of themselves as one big 'Mediterranean family' They were all nationalistic and never saw themselves as having any common identity. Post some evidence to prove your point but do not commence to chest-pounding about Mediterraneans.

Hah, much like black Africans!

[topdog]

Mike said:

Hah, much like black Africans!

Indeed, Africans never thought of themselves as being the same as others except in some closely related peoples that were in most cases absorbed by another ethnic group.

[alexandrian]

Topdog said:

***WRONG***. none of those peoples thought of themselves as one big 'Mediterranean family' They were all nationalistic and never saw themselves as having any common identity. Post some evidence to prove your point but do not commence to chest-pounding about Mediterraneans.

It's not like this concept is some mundane thing I'm pulling out of my ass.

Just read "Memory and the Mediterranean" by Fernand Braudel.

Do you Afrocentrists read anything that isn't entitled "STOLEN GLORY OF THE BLACK MAN" or something to that effect?

German scholar Oswald Spengler separated southern and northern Europe and grouped southern Europe with Egypt and Phoenicia in what he described as "Magian" culture.

Didn't the Greek word "koine" refer to some sort of culture had in common by various Mediterranean peoples?

And the Egyptians never considred themselves black or associated themselves with black Africans, yet that doesn't stop people like you from fabricating for them some sort of "black African" racial identity.


Most ancient civilizations were together part of a "Mediterranean world". They traded, almost exclusively, with other Mediterranean civs. There was a vast exchange of knowledge, language, food, culture, and peoples across the entire Eastern Med region. They definitely saw themselves as having a lot in common. A "Mediterranean world" was most certainly in existence, and it is a phrase used often in speaking of ancient times. A common "Mediterranean" identity would probably still be in effect were it not for the Arab-Islamic influence across the Near East. There are very strong cultural similarities, best expressed through cuisine and individual habits, across the Mediterranean. It is without question that the civilizations along the Eastern Mediterranean basin had a lot more in common with each other than they did with black Africans, northern Euros, or Asians east of Persia.

[captainusa1]

Human said:

Trog & Captain.

you are incapable of making a critical evaluation of Northern European civilization. no one here wants to play down Northern European peoples role in the development of this world. what one has to be aware though is that however great Northern Europe may be today they have had a far late start, plus that the very basic elements of their civilizations are NOT indigenous to their areas, in other words, they themselves were civilized and, as a matter of fact, only transmitted those refinements to other folks (writing from phoenicians; intelectuallity from the Greeks; Jewish and Greek morality; Greek and other civilizations Mathematical contributions, etc). placing things into perspective, exposing bizarre superiority delusions, etc, have nothing to do with any agenda.

to Captain, USA is NOT Northern Europe.
even if you thought so youd still be only pseudo Northern Europe. you have a great Southern European contribution, as well as black culture, etc, etc, and you know it.
good that you are reading the bible, good that you are a Christian (the Romans did a good job there baptizing the Brits). if you were looking for moral inspiring in Germanic tales, youd be indoctrinated with liberty and individualism cult, and yes, with revenge as well. not that youll find any readable Northern Material as old as and as morally as profound as the Hebrew prophets works and the New Testament, e.g, but anyway if you are into it, read some nice Germanic tales such as Wieland, der Schmitz, the Siegfried thing, Beowulf... later we discuss what they stand for, ok ?

highly arguable that Northern Europe 'have modernized' the world. Europeans, AS A WHOLE, with a much stronger weight on Southern and Central Europe, have done that (you cant leave out Spain, France, Italy and Portugal). by the time of Italians GREAT Renaissance period, Northern Europeans were still elaborating the Roman/Greek/Jewish elements transmitted by the Romans.

My posts in this thread are based on objective facts rather than subjective delusions. I never claimed that the USA is a Northern European country. However, almost all of the Founding Fathers were of British descent. They certainly weren't from New Delhi. It's also true that the lion's share of advancements that propelled the world into the modern era after 1600 were made by Northern Europeans and Americans of Northern European descent. You may try to minimize or rationalize this truth away for your own personal reasons, but that won't change the historical record. Look at people like Edison, Newton, Fleming, Jenner, Bell, Morse, Ford, the Wright Brothers, Newcomen, Watt, Jefferson, Locke, etc. They literally changed the world. I challenge you to comprise a comparable list of Hindus. BTW, you neglected to address the verifiable fact that the Scandinavian countries are at the top of every quality-of-life list. Compare the literacy rate of Iceland to that of India, for example. These figures can be found on www.nationmaster.com. The men and women from Northern European countries even dominate strength contests, so Northern European people have brain *and* brawn.

[Human]

Captain said:

My posts in this thread are based on objective facts rather than subjective delusions. I never claimed that the USA is a Northern European country. However, almost all of the Founding Fathers were of British descent. They certainly weren't from New Delhi. It's also true that the lion's share of advancements that propelled the world into the modern era after 1600 were made by Northern Europeans and Americans of Northern European descent. You may try to minimize or rationalize this truth away for your own personal reasons, but that won't change the historical record. Look at people like Edison, Newton, Fleming, Jenner, Bell, Morse, Ford, the Wright Brothers, Newcomen, Watt, Jefferson, Locke, etc. They literally changed the world. I challenge you to comprise a comparable list of Hindus. BTW, you neglected to address the verifiable fact that the Scandinavian countries are at the top of every quality-of-life list. Compare the literacy rate of Iceland to that of India, for example. These figures can be found on www.nationmaster.com. The men and women from Northern European countries even dominate strength contests, so Northern European people have brain *and* brawn.

the facts that you have mentioned are pretty accurate. however, they do not, for the reasons pointed in my previous posts, back up the superiority claims so commonly found in the average Northern Euro mentality, in Northern Euro supremacism Forums or in pseudo intellectuals. on the other hand, other regions of the globe, who have contributed as much if not more to the general development of mankind are not as self superior as time and again Northern Euros sometimes can be.

[captainusa1]

Human said:

the facts that you have mentioned are pretty accurate. however, they do not, for the reasons pointed in my previous posts, back up the superiority claims so commonly found in the average Northern Euro mentality, in Northern Euro supremacism Forums or in pseudo intellectuals. on the other hand, other regions of the globe, who have contributed as much if not more to the general development of mankind are not as self superior as time and again Northern Euros sometimes can be.

I agree with you that it's wrong for any regional group to try to take credit for everything. However, the Northern Europeans certainly haven't cornered the market on that one! Enough said. I don't wanna start WWIII.;D

[Human]

Captain said:

I agree with you that it's wrong for any regional group to try to take credit for everything. However, the Northern Europeans certainly haven't cornered the market on that one! Enough said. I don't wanna start WWIII.;D

Captain said: 'However, the Northern Europeans certainly haven't cornered the market on that one!'

no, they have not, clearly not (the japs, the jews, etc, can get pretty as much xenophobic as - if not more, i guess, and even in sub saharan africa or native america one can get it too).

i dont want to start WWIII either. there are enough conflicts in this world already!

[captainusa1]

BTW, Human, I didn't intend to disparage Hindus and/or Indians. India certainly has a rich history, and Indian-Americans are some of the most industrious and intelligent citizens in the United States. The Indian-American women are appealing too. They're very feminine and traditional. I think that there are myriad reasons for the social problems in India, but I don't think that they stem from any kind of inherent inferiority of the people of that country.

[Springa]

Oh right. So I expect to see you figure in all the threads that you consider to be getting out of hand and are not remaining civil( by civil do you mean a bashful, humble, self-deprecating northern European?).

No I don't, because most of the topics where people start calling each other names for almost no reason usually have other people doing that. And depending on the topic, the namecallers are ridiculed or banned. Anyway, just because I don't have the patience to be a vigilante here doesn't make your behaviour apropriate, does it?


Now that's not quite right now, is it? I referred to him as a parasite for reasons much more deeper than Geldof's. Much deeper. I am sure people have been referred to as much worse, but you will of course have over-looked this.

Well, deep reasons or not, your Geldof example was silly and I used it to emphasize my point.

I don't think it was as cut and dried as that. You seem to be mopping up Human's mess everywhere. Captain is perhaps one of the most reasonable and intelligent posters you will ever encounter.

Of course, I know he's a smart guy. Doesn't mean he always has to be right about everything does it? I believe it's unneccessary for me to say "in my opinion" every time I make a point. After all this is a forum, we're supposed to disagree from time to time. We're just not supposed to behave like children because someone thinks a certain people from 1000's of years ago were more civilized than another.

Notice how all the worthy material I have provided has been glided over, but you seem to creating a drama out of nothing.
As I said about three times, I'm not concerned with this subject, at least not to the point of commenting it. But the dumb stuff you said about Human and specially the part about everybody south of the Equator living like primitives made me want to reply. Also, I didn't make that big of a drama in the first place. I just said I didn't agree with your behaviour, but then you started saying absurdities and justifying your bad manners and I replied to that.
Also, I'd like to clear out that I feel no more personal simpathy with Human than with any other user here. I don't even think he felt offended nor do I care. What disturbs me is when people think they're entitled to cross the line, insult people and say absurd things unneccesarily, because I find it arrogant and selfish, because if everyone did that this forum would be a nightmare.

It was in the RM forum I made the comment that I could not see the likelihood of a someone from Ethiopia having both Scottish and Finnish ancestry.
No, it was here (at least you said that here too), check your old messages. And I didn't open any topic about it (check mine). I just replied to it at the time and remembered that because you said something almost as, let's put it this way, strange. After all your exact quote is what I pasted, you couldn't see how an Ethiopian (which is particularly funny, since the guy in question was American, with an Ethiopian mother) could be 1/4 Finnish and 1/4 Scottish. Than I replied it was obviously possible, and because of that you said I had a "sugar coated" liberal agenda, which is also one of my favorite quotes by you.
Anyway, let's put it all behind us and move on now. Just please, manage your anger from now on.

[Samhain]

what point are you trying to make, that Europeans are responsible for the African success story called Botswana? Mind you, you missed the part of the citation that stated Botswana was one of the poorest nations in the world at the beginning of their independence. If Europeans are responsible for Botswana success, why was it poor when it became independent, but became rich ***AFTER*** independence? As usual your line of argument is debunked.

Why have you convinced yourself that Europeans completely vacated an African country rich in diamonds and left no legacy at all? DO you seriously think that European have not had any input the past and present? Ignoring the official language being English, ignoring that Europe is 87% of trade, ignoring that Roman-Dutch law has helped moderate the country to some extent, thus reducing potential dictatorships and corruption that are so common in Africa. Let's see shall we if Europe has completely left Botswana and has no influence:

Aid from all sources has fallen markedly in recent years and now consists largely of technical assistance. Among EU Member States, Britain, Germany , Denmark , France , Netherlands and Sweden still have on-going programmes but only the first two* are now significant in financial terms-Other donors such as the USA , Canada and Norway have ended their previously substantial programmes.

*(note the first two being Britain and Germany



The European Union – EC plus Member States – is thus the only remaining substantial provider of development grant assistance to Botswana . This is of a certain political significance. Botswana values its development partnerships and has expressed regret that some traditional donors have withdrawn their support more completely than the country’s economic – and political – situation might appear to justify. Co-operation with the European Union is all the more appreciated because of its contractual character and its predictability under the terms of the 20-year Cotonou Agreement. As regards development loans, Botswana appears to represent an attractive placement for international lending institutions. Botswana ’s recent success in obtaining good sovereign credit ratings will undoubtedly reinforce this perception. Accordingly, regional development banks continue to provide substantial development finance, notably various Arab funds, African Development Bank (AfDB) and European Investment Bank (EIB).




The 20 year Cotonou Agreement:

The agreement provides the 77 ACP countries (South Africa excepted) with an extension of existing non-reciprocal preferential access for certain ACP agricultural and other goods to the EU market at least through 2002, when a preparatory period will begin during which ACP countries will build their capacities to withstand freer trade. Commencing 2002-2008, the EU and ACP will negotiate WTO compatible and reciprocal trade agreements to be implemented from 2008-2020. As part of the accord, the EU has pledged to provide ACP countries with about US$12.5 billion (EUR $13.5 billion) in official development assistance (ODA).

the point is that Africans are not living the same way they were living thousands of years ago

So why did you say this?

Yeah we know that Africans have been living like this for the last thousands of years

When shown this:





If those Africans are living this way in today's modern era, what where they living like 2000 years ago?

[Samhain]

Alexandrian said:

The peoples of the ancient Mediterranean did at times see themselves as having a common identity and belonging to a common world. That "world" was the Mediterranean. It's not just a coincidence that all great ancient civilizations were Mediterranean ones (i.e. on the Mediterranean)

Egypt, Sumer, MInoan Crete, Greece, Phoenicia, Carthage, Assyrians, Hebrews, Canaanites, Babylonians, Romans, and the list goes on....

Romans weren't 'Mediterraneans' in the physical sense. They were a mix of all European types with "mediterranean" being the lesser component.