|
Post by topdog on Mar 26, 2005 8:45:12 GMT -5
Rate the "Caucasianess" of the following ancient civilizations. Think up your own scale. Percentages, points, or whatever. Post evidense. Rate the following civilizations, in how caucasian you see them as. (Add ones, etc.) Assyrians Babylonians Hitites Hebrews Mesopotamians Egyptians Minoans Greeks Macedonians Persians Phoenicians Sumarians Sumer and Egypt were not 'Caucasian' civilisations. Ancient Egypt was racially diverse and Sumer had a moderate to significant Australoid component. Some of the people of Sumer were morphologically the same as those of Indus. Besides that, its pointless to attempt to rate civilisations in terms of 'Caucasianess'.(!)
|
|
|
Post by CooCooCachoo on Mar 26, 2005 10:04:43 GMT -5
If you believe that, then you must believe Dodona is a giant waste of time. ...Which would make you a very wise man, but not in keeping with the company of your peers.
What's the point of establishing the "Caucasianess" of various ancient civilizations? ...Well for one, White ideological websites make claims regarding the necessity of a majority of Caucasians to establish and maintain a thriving society. What's worse is that they largely back up these claims, with statues of Greeks, Romans and even Egyptians showing a more Nordic pressence, at the height of these civilizations.
I would like to see a more neutral site like Dodona either debunk or support these claims.
|
|
|
Post by alexandrian on Mar 26, 2005 14:28:42 GMT -5
Sumer and Egypt were not 'Caucasian' civilisations. That's your opinion and you haven't been able to back it up. Even if they were both "racially diverse" the majority of the inhabitants were of Caucasoid stock. America is "racially diverse" but its also a "Caucasian civilization" IMO.
|
|
|
Post by mike2 on Mar 26, 2005 21:18:36 GMT -5
That's your opinion and you haven't been able to back it up. Even if they were both "racially diverse" the majority of the inhabitants were of Caucasoid stock. America is "racially diverse" but its also a "Caucasian civilization" IMO. Exactly. Nobody's doubting that there were blacks in Egypt or Australoids in Sumer. I even mentioned that when I went through the civilizations. But that doesn't mean they weren't predominantly Caucasoid civilizations, which they were. TopDog, stop trying to erase the white man from history.
|
|
|
Post by CooCooCachoo on Mar 26, 2005 22:32:37 GMT -5
The White site, (Stormfront), does the same to erase other ethnicities. There ARE clearly many numerous non-white groups in Egypt. In fact for the majority of Egyptian history, it is ruled and run by non-Whites. The Statues of the Pharoahs bear out that there were Sudanese, and even Semetic, Pharoahs. (Previous enemies of Egypt.)
I think it's fair to declare a civilization as multi-ethnic. And what great civilization wouldn't be? ...I'm sure Egypt was a focal point for the peaceful meeting of many ethnicities for trade and commerce. And wars happened, but were probably brief, but celebrated events as they ARE very dramatic.
Certain civs I would say are more or less NOT mixed. The Phoenicians were Semetic. As were the Mesopotamians. The Greeks were Caucasian, even perhaps Nordic. The Romans were started by Caucasians, but became multi-ethnic.
I was kind of hoping people might post some pictures. I've been looking in Google for Civs I don't know that much about.
|
|
|
Post by alexandrian on Mar 26, 2005 22:39:36 GMT -5
In fact for the majority of Egyptian history, it is ruled and run by non-Whites. What the hell are you talking about? Egypt was only ruled by black Africans for 80 years during the 25th dynasty that began with the rule of Kushite kind Taharqa and ended just 80 years later. The British ruled Egypt for longer than that! Sure, some members of the Egyptian royal family in other dynasties had Negroid admixture but that is solely due to the fact that the Royal court carried numerous Nubian concubines. This fact came out in the Royal Family of certain dynasties. Semites are whites btw.
|
|
|
Post by CooCooCachoo on Mar 26, 2005 22:45:40 GMT -5
What the hell are you talking about? Egypt was only ruled by black Africans for 80 years during the 25th dynasty that began with the rule of Kushite kind Taharqa and ended just 80 years later. The British ruled Egypt for longer than that! Sure, some members of the Egyptian royal family in other dynasties had Negroid admixture but that is solely due to the fact that the Royal court carried numerous Nubian concubines. This fact came out in the Royal Family of certain dynasties. Semites are whites btw. ...Yeah yeah yeah. Stormfront does everything it can to describe black rule in Egypt as "decline". But the truth is, it seems to have gone on for much longer. You have to go back pretty far to find the bust of Nefretiti. And there are NUMEROUS Egyptians after her that look nothing like that. I want to keep this thread open for the other Civs. There's enough out there in regard to the Egyptians. And while I found the Stormfront assertions interesting, there were de-emphasized facts to suite their purposes.
|
|
|
Post by mike2 on Mar 26, 2005 22:48:30 GMT -5
The White site, (Stormfront), does the same to erase other ethnicities You're right. Stormfront's a joke. It doesn't even get white racial history right, let alone the histories of other races. There ARE clearly many numerous non-white groups in Egypt. The only non-white group I can think of are the Nubians and possibly the Veddoids. Everybody else surrounding Egypt is white. In fact for the majority of Egyptian history, it is ruled and run by non-Whites. The Statues of the Pharoahs bear out that there were Sudanese, and even Semetic, Pharoahs. (Previous enemies of Egypt. I don't know much about the pharaohs so I can't answer that, even though my suspicion is that it isn't true. I think it's fair to declare a civilization as multi-ethnic. And what great civilization wouldn't be? ...I'm sure Egypt was a focal point for the peaceful meeting of many ethnicities for trade and commerce. And wars happened, but were probably brief, but celebrated events as they ARE very dramatic. I agree. Egypt was the world's first melting pot. But that doesn't mean the Egyptians were mixed with non-whites to a very significant degree. The Phoenicians were Semetic. Linguistically, yes. As were the Mesopotamians. The Sumerians weren't Semitic-speaking, but the Akkadians, Assyrians, and Babylonians were, yes. The Greeks were Caucasian, even perhaps Nordic. The Greeks were not Nordic by any stretch of the imagination. They were Atlanto-Mediterranean, Alpine, and Dinaric. Nordics were not native to the land. The Romans were started by Caucasians, but became multi-ethnic. Yes, but not multiracial. I was kind of hoping people might post some pictures. I've been looking in Google for Civs I don't know that much about. Give me a civilization and I can help you out.
|
|
|
Post by CooCooCachoo on Mar 27, 2005 0:21:37 GMT -5
Cool! I get to pick a couple civs. Ok... Let's start with the Hitites and Syrians. Stormfront has the stone carving claiming that the Egyptians recorded their enemies very carefully. Here it is... ![](http://www.stormfront.org/whitehistory/egg1_files/hitittes.jpg) ![](http://www.stormfront.org/whitehistory/egg1_files/assyrians.jpg) These people have stub noses, and look to me to be "less Semetic". Any insights? Also, Macedonians and Greeks for that matter were described as having blonde hair and blue eyes. They also wore armor that suggested accentuating a high cephalic head index. Plus the statues do look pretty Nordic to me. ![](http://historylink101.net/greek_images/large-greek-statues.jpg) ![](http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/images/h2/h2_25.116.jpg) ![](http://lachlan.bluehaze.com.au/london2002/december2002/18dec2002b/mvc-007f.jpg) ![](http://www.ucd.ie/ucdnews/oct99/pics/greek.jpg)
|
|
|
Post by mike2 on Mar 27, 2005 0:39:45 GMT -5
Don't be fooled by color terms, CooCooCachoo. Nordicists and Afrocentrists love those. Dienekes has put all doubts to rest about the Greeks in his " Racial Type of the Ancient Hellenes" article. It is very comprehensive and quite convincing. The Greeks were in antiquity and still are Atlanto-Mediterranean, Alpine, and Dinaric. Nordics in Greece are unimportant and have always been unimportant. Most of the blond or "northern" European elements are actually of Alpine derivation. As for the Hittites, they were Alpine and Armenoid. The traditional definition of an Armenoid is an Irano-Afghan or Cappadocian brachycephalized by Alpine mixture. The hooked nose is common and the type is very visible in the Egyptian and Hittite reliefs.
|
|
|
Post by CooCooCachoo on Mar 27, 2005 1:00:30 GMT -5
It's hooked, but portrayed as very small. Not at all what I expected.
|
|
|
Post by mike2 on Mar 27, 2005 1:20:42 GMT -5
I don't think they're small. The tip is just depressed. Would you say that this guy has a small nose: ![](http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-1/940702/Armenoid.jpg)
|
|
|
Post by topdog on Mar 27, 2005 1:50:14 GMT -5
That's your opinion and you haven't been able to back it up. Even if they were both "racially diverse" the majority of the inhabitants were of Caucasoid stock. America is "racially diverse" but its also a "Caucasian civilization" IMO. America isn't a 'Caucasian' civilisation. The nation and the people who've contributed to its heritage are multi-racial and come from all walks of life. It makes no sense to call America a 'Caucasian' civilisation.
|
|
|
Post by topdog on Mar 27, 2005 1:52:14 GMT -5
Exactly. Nobody's doubting that there were blacks in Egypt or Australoids in Sumer. I even mentioned that when I went through the civilizations. But that doesn't mean they weren't predominantly Caucasoid civilizations, which they were. TopDog, stop trying to erase the white man from history. 'Caucasoids' doesn't mean white specifically. Many Orientallid Arabs are skeletally 'Caucasoid, but they are not white people, the same with Indians in Indian.
|
|
|
Post by topdog on Mar 27, 2005 1:57:56 GMT -5
What the hell are you talking about? Egypt was only ruled by black Africans for 80 years during the 25th dynasty that began with the rule of Kushite kind Taharqa and ended just 80 years later. The British ruled Egypt for longer than that! Sure, some members of the Egyptian royal family in other dynasties had Negroid admixture but that is solely due to the fact that the Royal court carried numerous Nubian concubines. This fact came out in the Royal Family of certain dynasties. Semites are whites btw. Again, you guys in here keep using 'Caucasoid' as a euphemism for white. The majority of Egypt's inhabitants were not white and did not look like Northern and Southern Europeans. You forget that the Egyptians depicted themselves as disntinct from both Europeans, Nubians, and Semites. Besides the 25th dynasty Nubians, there were black and or mixed Egyptian rulers, don't try to write off the native black Egyptian rulers. Semites for the most part look distinct from Europeans, especially Bedouins, so you can't say all Semites are white.
|
|