|
|
Post by berschneider on Apr 9, 2004 13:46:36 GMT -5
I have no gripe against the so-called Slavs who left this board. I understand that I upset them with things I wrote, but if they are truly sincere they should pay attention to some things written on this board about how Nordicists truly feel about them. My goal is not to put them down but to elevate them -- no one deserves to be treated as second-class under the Nordicist scheme. Undoubtedly there are ethnic tensions in Slavic countries leading up to attacks against, for example, swarthy peoples from Asia, Africa, and especially the Caucasus region. However, these groups are falsely equated with Southern Europeans by some so-called East European racialists, when in fact Southern Europeans have nothing to do with the Slavic countries other than having built many of their cities by having had geniuses commissioned to design many of their important landmarks over the past few centuries. Southern Europeans have nothing to do with their problems. Thus, the hatred directed toward them from so-called East Europeans can only come from those who are somewhat culturally distanced from these countries; those who are Americanized, for lack of a better term, and have incorporated fringe American concepts. However, it so happens that many of those who trash Southern Europeans in America feel that Eastern Europeans are Mongoloid. So, there are no points to win by attacking Southern Europeans. I understand, though, that some of these extreme nationalists feel no kinship with Meds because they tend to be fairer-skinned. That's perfectly fine. But they should realize that the swarthy German-Americans they want to make alliances with want to use them as slaves, as their ideological forebears did a few decades ago: to make the men work the fields and industries and use their women as whores. The Nordicists who post on certain forums idealize and sympathize with the Nazis: one can see this with their choice of avatars. However the American racists wish to deny it, the Nazis wrought destruction to many Slavic lives and families, simply because they were Slavic. Thus, the Slavs who choose to "side" with them and attack the Meds to show how un-Med they are are insulting their heritage rather than displaying honorable behavior. Since they despise Meds -- or Levantines, to be more precise -- they are stuck between a rock and a hard place. They can despise Meds all that they want, but forging alliances with Nazis and Nordicists like McCulloch isn't the way to go. No one, however, should be forced to like a certain group. Thus, there is no reason to be angry with them, especially since racists who rant on message boards carry little influence in social and political affairs. I agree with you completely. Before I "discovered" this racial anthropology thing about a week ago, I did not even know that there was any problem or a dispute between Mediterraneans and the Nordicists, and I still believe there is none. Forums like the skadi or this one are really esoteric and bizarre. But since such forums and such people exist (again I never even suspected of their existence), then I find it humorous and quite revealing when Russians or Poles degrade themselves and seek sympathy from their Nordicist would-be masters who really despise them passionately and consider Slavs either worse than themselves or not fully human. |
|
|
|
Post by alex221166 on Apr 9, 2004 14:17:40 GMT -5
"By the way, I don't think Portuguese history is that more "democratic" than Russia's (by historic standards Portugal's flirt with democracy is recent)."
You are wrong. The Portuguese monarchic system was more democratic than any other (with the exception of the one used in Castille and Aragon which was of a similar nature) in Europe during the same period of time. We have a democratic constitution since 1822, and we were the first country in the world to do something against slavery, and to abolish the death penalty. If "Portugal's flirt with democracy" is recent, then Russia's is newborn. Unlike what happened in Portugal, the type of government known as despotism was the rule throughout was the rule throughout ALL of Russia's history. In fact, I am not sure they have a true democratic regime in Russia as we speak.
"Portgual has always been a rather undeveloped, uneducated nation. I for one have never heard of any world class Portuguese composer or an author."
That is not exactly true. As to undevelopment, it is true that Portugal never had an Industrial Revolution like Britain, Germany or France. As to being uneducated, I am afraid that is also true for the bulk of the Portuguese population.
However, if you have never heard of a world class Portuguese composer or author, that is not Portugal's fault, but your own. Educate yourself.
"Compared with nations of similar size, Portugal is a total zero, - no offense intended."
I am not offended by your ignorance.
"On the other hand saying Russia would be a "nullity" if there was no a coordinated educational and science policy, then that is true. Any NATION would be nullity if it has no coordinated educational policy. Russia now has the world's highest enrollment in the world, which actually increased by about 40% since the end of Communism."
I don't want to insult Russians in any way (they are one of my favourite peoples in the world), but with a country with such wealth and area, they shoudl be the richest and most developed country in the whole world. As to my previous comments about Russians, all I meant to say is that most present-day Russians descend from the lower peasant classes which were able to survive though 74 years of Communist terror.
|
|
|
|
Post by berschneider on Apr 9, 2004 14:40:20 GMT -5
" "You are wrong. The Portuguese monarchic system was more democratic than any other (with the exception of the one used in Castille and Aragon which was of a similar nature) in Europe during the same period of time. Sure. More democratic than parliamentary system in Britain? More democratic than the Swiss system? Give me a break. Portugal was always an oppressive, backward excessively religious society on the fringes of Europe. We have a democratic constitution since 1822, and we were the first country in the world to do something against slavery, and to abolish the death penalty. Well, most countries in Europe NEVER HAD slavery. As of death penalty, Russia under Elisabeth I abolished death penalty in 1750s, during Seven Years War, and did not have death penalty for over 100 years, except for exceptional cases of treason (like after attempted Decembrist coup of 1824) If "Portugal's flirt with democracy" is recent, then Russia's is newborn. Unlike what happened in Portugal, the type of government known as despotism was the rule throughout was the rule throughout ALL of Russia's history. Again, you just proved again that you "knowledge" is a bunch of media steoreotypes and wild Russophobia. Russia had the shortest period of absolute monarchy among all European states. Modern Russia consists of two states, - the northern one is formed by the vast Duchy of Novgorod and the southern part by the Grand Duchy of Moscovy. The Duchy of Novgorod was a republic for at least 600 years. The Duchy of Moscovy was a limited monarchy until 18 century. Even Romanovs, as dynasty, were elected. In fact, I am not sure they have a true democratic regime in Russia as we speak. It depends on what your definition of democracy is  However, if you have never heard of a world class Portuguese composer or author, that is not Portugal's fault, but your own. Educate yourself. Name a Portuguese composer comparable to Beethoven, Berlioz, Tchaikovsky or, let's take smaller countries, Grieg, Sibelius, Dvorak? Any one? I am afraid not. I don't want to insult Russians in any way (they are one of my favourite peoples in the world), but with a country with such wealth and area, they shoudl be the richest and most developed country in the whole world. Most of Russian territory - Siberia and all Asian possessions - were either totally useless or were unreachable during Russia's history. Its role was that like of Louisiana or possessions in Canada to France, source of occasional fur and nothing else. Even now Siberia is practically unpopulated. It became a resource asset only recently, otherwise it has been either a liability or an nice thing to have on the map. The rest of these "comments" hardly deserve a response. |
|
|
|
Post by berschneider on Apr 9, 2004 14:49:19 GMT -5
By the way, I don't want to offend any Portuguese here. I want to offend you, because you are obviously an amateurish Russophobe and not very bright one to boot.
I like Portuguese people, and I like chourico, and smoked sardines, and festivals, and even Portuguese beer is not that bad.
Cheers
|
|
|
|
Post by alex221166 on Apr 9, 2004 16:10:40 GMT -5
"Sure. More democratic than parliamentary system in Britain? More democratic than the Swiss system? Give me a break. Portugal was always an oppressive, backward excessively religious society on the fringes of Europe." The Portuguese feudal monarchy was BY FAR more democratic than the French or the English monarchies. After 1822, we had a democratic government similar to those in Britain or France. You say that Portugal was oppressive: please say in what was Portugal oppressive. Provide examples. Religious? Yes - about as religious as Spain or Italy. "Well, most countries in Europe NEVER HAD slavery. As of death penalty, Russia under Elisabeth I abolished death penalty in 1750s, during Seven Years War, and did not have death penalty for over 100 years, except for exceptional cases of treason (like after attempted Decembrist coup of 1824)" No, most countries in Europe did have slavery. In Russia, they also had serfdom (which is a form of slavery). When I say abolished the death penalty, I mean ABOLISHED. When we abolished the death penalty, France was still decapitating people. "Again, you just proved again that you "knowledge" is a bunch of media steoreotypes and wild Russophobia. Russia had the shortest period of absolute monarchy among all European states. Modern Russia consists of two states, - the northern one is formed by the vast Duchy of Novgorod and the southern part by the Grand Duchy of Moscovy. The Duchy of Novgorod was a republic for at least 600 years. The Duchy of Moscovy was a limited monarchy until 18 century. Even Romanovs, as dynasty, were elected." So to you, the Romanov's were not absolute monarchs?  "It depends on what your definition of democracy is " Well, when there is no freedom of speech and when media tycoons are sent to jail just before the elections, then I say that there is a serious democratic deficit. Don't get me wrong - I like Putin. I think that he is what Russia needs to set the country straight, but he is no democrat. "Name a Portuguese composer comparable to Beethoven, Berlioz, Tchaikovsky or, let's take smaller countries, Grieg, Sibelius, Dvorak? Any one? I am afraid not." Well, we don't have anyone of the quality of Beethoven, Bach or Mozart, but during the early 1700s, when the Portuguese court was the richest in Europe, we welcomed dozens of the best barroque classical music composers. They influenced the generation of Portuguese composers that followed, and we do have some excellent composers for that period. Here is one of them www.terravista.pt/meco/2672/portugues/compositores/seixas.html"Most of Russian territory - Siberia and all Asian possessions - were either totally useless or were unreachable during Russia's history. Its role was that like of Louisiana or possessions in Canada to France, source of occasional fur and nothing else. Even now Siberia is practically unpopulated. It became a resource asset only recently, otherwise it has been either a liability or an nice thing to have on the map." Those are rich territories. "The rest of these "comments" hardly deserve a response." Likewise. |
|
|
|
Post by alex221166 on Apr 9, 2004 16:22:54 GMT -5
By the way, I don't want to offend any Portuguese here. I want to offend you, because you are obviously an amateurish Russophobe and not very bright one to boot. Cheers I am not a Russophobe. Portugal is packing with Eastern European immigrants, and I consider that a good thing (particularly when I look at the type of immigrants that Spain "imported"). If I gave the impression that I have anything against Russians, let me repeat that I do not - in many ways, I consider them similar to the Portuguese. If I offended you by saying that modern Russians descend from the lower classes of the early XX century Russian society, I am sorry but that happens to be true. Most of the aristocracy and the educated Russian middle class, were either executed by the communists, or they fled from Russia (many went to France and to the US). However, how can you say that you only wanted to hit me when you say the following You are obviously either an emotional teenager or you don't know how to express yourself in the English language. Either way, you have no manners. "I like Portuguese people, and I like chourico, and smoked sardines, and festivals, and even Portuguese beer is not that bad." Good for you, but there is a hell of a lot more to Portugal than grilled sardines and chouriço. |
|
|
|
Post by berschneider on Apr 9, 2004 17:13:04 GMT -5
If I offended you by saying that modern Russians descend from the lower classes of the early XX century Russian society, I am sorry but that happens to be true. Most of the aristocracy and the educated Russian middle class, were either executed by the communists, or they fled from Russia (many went to France and to the US). You did not offend me. Why would you? Were you to write similar garbage about Germany or Finland, I would have felt compelled to respond with the same kind of rebuttal. The idea that all educated classes left Russia or were executed after Communist takeover is absurd. Even Lenin belonged to minor nobility. Many Frenchmen left their country after the French Revolution (and a great number migrated to Prussia and Russia). This does not mean that only lower classes remained in France. Although several millions left Russia after 1917, those who stayed ensured continuity of the old tradition in music, architecture, liberal arts or even such areas as archeology. Same applies to technology. People who designed Soviet submarines or airplanes in the 1930 got their education under old empire. Those who designed aircraft in the 1970s or 1980s got their education from the previous generation. There was a continuum otherwise Russia would have been like Haiti now. Although emigrees from Russia started aircraft design companies in the US after the so called Revolution (like Sikorsky's helicopter and Seversky's Republic Aviation) the pre-Communist aeronautical school was strong enough to survive under Soviet regime and to supply the regime with first class aircraft. The author of the words of the Salinist anthem was a count, his son is a film maker. To believe that there was a some sort of zero hour at which all smart people left and only lower classes remained is absolute idiocy. You are obviously either an emotional teenager or you don't know how to express yourself in the English language." That's why I am writing in Portuguese. Either way, you have no manners. Manners are certainly not your strong point. Alas. Good for you, but there is a hell of a lot more to Portugal than grilled sardines and chouri�o. I wonder what could that be? Anyway, both grilled and smoked sardines are excellent, chourico is too. Bloodsausage is not as good as the German varieties but is edible. I tried several sorts of Portuguese beer, none of them was too bad either. |
|
|
|
Post by berschneider on Apr 9, 2004 17:50:37 GMT -5
The Portuguese feudal monarchy was BY FAR more democratic than the French or the English monarchies. After 1822, we had a democratic government similar to those in Britain or France. I am afraid you have no clue what are you talking bout. It is quite pathetic really. There was no democratic government anywhere in the world in 1822, either in the classical sense of demos + kratia not in the modern sense of a liberal democracty. Parliamentary control over monarchy is not the same as democracy. Religious? Yes - about as religious as Spain or Italy. I would agree to that or rather to the Spain part. It was backward, pious and oppressive place. Don't get me wrong, I believe Russia is still a backward and oppressive place, so the Portuguese are far ahead of Russians in this respect. "No, most countries in Europe did have slavery" What European countries practiced slavery on their territory in 18 or 19 century? Denmark? Austria? Sweden? n Russia, they also had serfdom (which is a form of slavery)." No it is not. Serfs in Prussia or Russia were in many respects freer than citizens of many modern "democratic" states like the USA. In Russia, since it bothers you so much, serfs were attached to the land but the landlord could not kill them and could not subject them to arbitrary punishment, they could own firearms, and paid no tax to the central government. Their equivalent of taxation payable to the landlord was never more than 5% of annual income (which is a boon comapred to modern levels of state taxation) and they could move to the cities if they kept on paying this "tax." While serf's place is demeaning it cannot be compared to slavery. When I say abolished the death penalty, I mean ABOLISHED. When we abolished the death penalty, France was still decapitating people." Abolished means abolished. In Russia death penalty was abolished except for wartime and emergencies and stayed abolished for over 100 years - from 1750 until 1860s. "So to you, the Romanov's were not absolute monarchs? Romanovs were absolute monarchs from 1700s until 1904. Period of absolute monarchy is comparable with other European states although it Russia it both began and ended much later than in many other nations. However the Romanov dynasty itself was elected by the land assembly of represenatives of all classes, from peasanty to the clergy, and only later - and gradually - monarchy managed to usurp more powers. Well, when there is no freedom of speech and when media tycoons are sent to jail just before the elections, then I say that there is a serious democratic deficit. The fact that Russia has media tycoons is already a sign of something. Closed societies where state runs everything don't have media in the hands of any tycoons. Even if that media tycoon's arrest was politically motivated, there are plenty of politically motivated court cases in the US while bringing up the topic of American elections wouldn't even be appropriate. Russia is by no means a democracy but neither are many states which are traditionally considered "democracies." Russia is less democratic than Germany and far less democratic than popular participatory democracy like Switzerland. Russia is more democratic than any OTHER former Soviet state and is more democratic than today's U.S. of A. What bothers outsiders but they never say it, is not the lack of democratic participation but that today's political process in Russia is quite close to the unrestrained democracy with very few checks and balances. In short, the outside world does not like the "result" of the Russian democracy or to put it differently America is unhappy with the kind of people Russian voters elect, not with lack of democratic participation (which is much higher than in the US). Don't get me wrong - I like Putin. I think that he is what Russia needs to set the country straight, but he is no democrat. I dislike Putin immensely (but I am a foreigner. I can't vote in Russia and it's not up to me to judge). On the other hand it's impossible to classify Putin as democrat or not unless I know what is your definition of democracy. Well, we don't have anyone of the quality of Beethoven, Bach or Mozart, but during the early 1700s, when the Portuguese court was the richest in Europe, we welcomed dozens of the best barroque classical music composers. They influenced the generation of Portuguese composers that followed, and we do have some excellent composers for that period. I guess not. No a big deal though. Those are rich territories. Until very recently these were totally useless and inaccessible territories. |
|
|
|
Post by alex221166 on Apr 9, 2004 19:07:07 GMT -5
"You did not offend me. Why would you? Were you to write similar garbage about Germany or Finland, I would have felt compelled to respond with the same kind of rebuttal. The idea that all educated classes left Russia or were executed after Communist takeover is absurd. Even Lenin belonged to minor nobility. Many Frenchmen left their country after the French Revolution (and a great number migrated to Prussia and Russia). This does not mean that only lower classes remained in France. Although several millions left Russia after 1917, those who stayed ensured continuity of the old tradition in music, architecture, liberal arts or even such areas as archeology. Same applies to technology. People who designed Soviet submarines or airplanes in the 1930 got their education under old empire. Those who designed aircraft in the 1970s or 1980s got their education from the previous generation. There was a continuum otherwise Russia would have been like Haiti now. Although emigrees from Russia started aircraft design companies in the US after the so called Revolution (like Sikorsky's helicopter and Seversky's Republic Aviation) the pre-Communist aeronautical school was strong enough to survive under Soviet regime and to supply the regime with first class aircraft. The author of the words of the Salinist anthem was a count, his son is a film maker. To believe that there was a some sort of zero hour at which all smart people left and only lower classes remained is absolute idiocy." You cannot compare the French revolution to the October revolution. The later ended up being much more brutal. I did not say that everyone that stayed in Russia was stupid. What I did say, is that the overwhelming majority of the aristocracy, bourjoisie, and middle class fled when the communists took over. That in turn allowed others (some of them had talent) to take their places. "That's why I am writing in Portuguese." Ok, so you are behaving like an idiot on purpose. "Manners are certainly not your strong point. Alas." Buy a mirror, Boris.  "I wonder what could that be? " Is that your way to not offend all the Portuguese? Do you see what I meant? You are being extremely rude and you don't even notice it, and you are also incoherent with your own previous statements. "Anyway, both grilled and smoked sardines are excellent, chourico is too. Bloodsausage is not as good as the German varieties but is edible. I tried several sorts of Portuguese beer, none of them was too bad either." There are three types of people: the first type only talks about what he ate or drank. The second type talks about what he does for a living. The third type is bored stiff when he is unfortunate to contact with any of the two previous types. "I am afraid you have no clue what are you talking bout. It is quite pathetic really. There was no democratic government anywhere in the world in 1822, either in the classical sense of demos + kratia not in the modern sense of a liberal democracty. Parliamentary control over monarchy is not the same as democracy." Mr Sardine Man: there is presently no real democracy in the original sense. Even the Athenian democracy wasn't a real democracy (women and slaves couldn't vote). When a portion of the population can elect and/or be elected to form a government, I call that a democratic system of government. Keep your adjectives to yourself. Democratic lessons from a Russian?! What is the world coming to!!! "I would agree to that or rather to the Spain part. It was backward, pious and oppressive place. Don't get me wrong, I believe Russia is still a backward and oppressive place, so the Portuguese are far ahead of Russians in this respect." If I told you how many (few) people go to church regularly, you would be susprised. You obviously don't have a clue about what you are talking about. "What European countries practiced slavery on their territory in 18 or 19 century? Denmark? Austria? Sweden?" I wouldn't know - we Portugal abolished slavery in Continental Portugal in April of 1770, and we were the first country in the world to do something to end slavery. England abolished slavery afterwards (and they kept treating the Irish like little more than slaves until the early 20th century). "In Russia, since it bothers you so much, serfs were attached to the land but the landlord could not kill them and could not subject them to arbitrary punishment, they could own firearms, and paid no tax to the central government. Their equivalent of taxation payable to the landlord was never more than 5% of annual income (which is a boon comapred to modern levels of state taxation) and they could move to the cities if they kept on paying this "tax." While serf's place is demeaning it cannot be compared to slavery." "The landlord could not kill them" - simply excellent. 5% taxation? 5% of what when they didn't have anything? If life as a serf was so easy, why rebel against the landowners? Why were they tied to the land if the working conditions were so great?  "Romanovs were absolute monarchs from 1700s until 1904. Period of absolute monarchy is comparable with other European states although it Russia it both began and ended much later than in many other nations. However the Romanov dynasty itself was elected by the land assembly of represenatives of all classes, from peasanty to the clergy, and only later - and gradually - monarchy managed to usurp more powers." So to you, Peter the Great was not an absolute monarch? The man who sentenced to death tens of thousands of serfs who drained the swamps to build St Petersburg, the man who ordered all Russians to dress like westerners (or risk punishment)... was he a "democrat"? "The fact that Russia has media tycoons is already a sign of something." Yes, it is a sign of post-communist corruption. "Closed societies where state runs everything don't have media in the hands of any tycoons." Indeed. "Even if that media tycoon's arrest was politically motivated," "Even"? Hahahaha!!! Yeah, the guy was sponsoring a rival candidate and he goes to jail . Long live democracy! Even the UN said that the elections weren't fair in some areas of the country! "there are plenty of politically motivated court cases in the US while bringing up the topic of American elections wouldn't even be appropriate." Why talk about the US judicial system? I think the US judicial system is a joke (all systems with jurors are a feudal joke). You said that Portugal was "oppressive" . Please, elaborate on that one. " Russia is by no means a democracy but neither are many states which are traditionally considered "democracies." " I don't care abotu other states. The discussion is Portugal and Russia and their role as democratic, religious and opressive countries. "Russia is less democratic than Germany and far less democratic than popular participatory democracy like Switzerland. Russia is more democratic than any OTHER former Soviet state and is more democratic than today's U.S. of A." Who cares about the former USSR republics? Let me repeat: Portugal vs Russia - after your roll of insults, that is all I care about. "What bothers outsiders but they never say it, is not the lack of democratic participation but that today's political process in Russia is quite close to the unrestrained democracy with very few checks and balances. In short, the outside world does not like the "result" of the Russian democracy or to put it differently America is unhappy with the kind of people Russian voters elect, not with lack of democratic participation (which is much higher than in the US)." Let me tell you something: when you don't have ONE SINGLE TV STATION which isn't controlled by the Kremlin, then you have no democracy. In my opinion, the Russians aren't ready for democracy, what they need is a Tsar (and that is the role that Putin is assuming). "I dislike Putin immensely (but I am a foreigner. I can't vote in Russia and it's not up to me to judge). On the other hand it's impossible to classify Putin as democrat or not unless I know what is your definition of democracy." To me, democracy is a sytem in which the citizens can elect a representative government. The Athenian style of democracy is clearly not functional. "I guess not. No a big deal though. " In case you were temporarily blind, what i said was that we had several world class composers of barroque classical music (though not as good as a Johan Sebastian Bach or a Pachelbel). Then again, Bach is the best. "Until very recently these were totally useless and inaccessible territories." Not my problem, is it? The wealth is still there. |
|
|
|
Post by berschneider on Apr 9, 2004 20:05:17 GMT -5
I won't keep up with this copy/paste business, so let me tell you a few things.
First of all I am not a Russian and never had Russian citizenship although I have personal ties to that country. The accusation that is something wrong with another person’s viewpoint because of his or her ethnicity is not new (in the somewhat similar Skadi forum I was accused of being a Jew), - but is typical of your ilk I guess.
As of being lectured on democracy by a Russian, well it’s about same as one would claim that Portuguese would be disqualified to talk about esthetics or modern art because their women are fat, ugly, swarthy and have beards and whiskers. It’s a totally stupid way of making an argument and (yet another!) proof that you are total idiot.
Besides being stupid, you are an incredibly rude. I know that rudeness is not an genetic trait of all Portuguese nonetheless I find you particularly distasteful character.
That said here are a few points.
Russia migration. Although nobility and wealthy property owners left, a large share of the middle class, office corps, and professionals stayed in the country and worked for and with the Communists.
TV ownership. Until very recently in Austria all broadcasting was owned by the central government and the ÖRF was the only broadcaster. This did not make Austria less or more democratic (it was fully democratic). To claim that a particular form of television ownership is synonymous with democracy is just another proof that you are an idiot.
Modern democracy, in the liberal sense, is a representative form of the government with a system of checks and balances and a mechanism for protection of minority rights.
In that sense Russia is not a democracy because it lacks proper system of checks and balances and does not fully ensure minority rights.
From the standpoint of direct expression of popular will through elections, Russia is more democratic than the United States and a number of other states (but less democratic than Switzerland. Process for calling referenda in Russia is more cumbersome than in Switzerland and required number of petitioners is prohibitively large).
Peter I was the first absolute monarch, who attained absolutist status through a number of minor coups.
Enough said. The rest of bullshit does not merit an answer. Problem with you (besides the fact that you are total moron) is that you lack any knowledge on the subject you are talking about. What you have in your tiny head is propaganda and some weird stereotypes. Forget about Russia. Were we to talk about United States or Finland (of which you most certainly also know nothing) the result would still be the same since you’ve got no knowledge of the subject you trying to judge, and, worse, no common sense either.
|
|
|
|
Post by Melnorme on Apr 9, 2004 20:28:51 GMT -5
(in the somewhat similar Skadi forum I was accused of being a Jew) I was thinking the same thing myself, actually. If 'berschneider' is your last name, and you are Russian... |
|
|
|
Post by berschneider on Apr 9, 2004 20:51:23 GMT -5
I was thinking the same thing myself, actually. If 'berschneider' is your last name, and you are Russian... I am neither although I have nothing either against Russians or the Jews of course. |
|
|
|
Post by berschneider on Apr 9, 2004 20:56:07 GMT -5
I was thinking the same thing myself, actually. If 'berschneider' is your last name, and you are Russian... Ha... these are two big ifs if 'berschneider' is my (real) last name (who knows?) and if I am Russian if none of the above is known for sure then it is a guessing game at best |
|
|
|
Post by AWAR on Apr 9, 2004 21:01:49 GMT -5
This comparation of nations is so ridiculous..... sentences like:
I don't hate Russia, even though it produced only 540.000 trucks, while at the same time Portugal had no decent baseball players in Japan. ;D
It's impossible to evaluate some nations influence in history, and even less likely to establish some fair comparation between two modern nations, especially with the trends that change from year to year.
|
|
|
|
Post by berschneider on Apr 9, 2004 21:14:51 GMT -5
This comparation of nations is so ridiculous..... sentences like: I don't hate Russia, even though it produced only 540.000 trucks, while at the same time Portugal had no decent baseball players in Japan. ;D It's impossible to evaluate some nations influence in history, and even less likely to establish some fair comparation between two modern nations, especially with the trends that change from year to year. agreed 100%. Back to the thread topic. I think Serbs were the most maligned and demonized European nation in the 1990s. Also Arabs is the ethnic group that can be safely slandered and stereotyped. On the other hand Arabs are hardly a nation and they are not European, so I guess they don't qualify. |
|
