It may have been because these sorts of people had no real contact with real Asia and so they could label exotic European cultures as simply "oriental".
Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...
Potemkin wrote:Mainly because no-one gives a fuck about them. After all, from the West's perspective, they were "mongoloid Russians" killing other "mongoloid Russians". Why should the American or the British elite have cared about this? The Nazi atrocities were played up because we were physically fighting them during WWII and the people they were killing were, by and large, our allies in that war. Of course we were going to care about it, and use it as grist for our propaganda mill. The Soviet massacres, on the other hand, were regarded as an internal matter for the Soviet Union in the 1930s and 40s, and were never widely publicised during the Cold War because of anti-Slavic racism and because the Cold War never went 'hot'. Moral of the story: if you're going to commit genocide, then make sure you only massacre people whom no-one gives a damn about. It has nothing to do with a worldwide Jewish conspiracy to conceal the truth, as you seem to be implying.
ArtAllm wrote:I have provided a better scientific work that quotes ancient documents that confirm that the first "ethnic male Greeks" who settled in Egypt married local women.
Citizenship Greeks wrote:An important aspect of polis citizenship was exclusivity. Polis meant both the political assembly as well as the entire society. Inequality of status was widely accepted. Citizens had a higher status than non-citizens, such as women, slaves or barbarians. For example, women were believed to be irrational and incapable of political participation, although a few writers, most notably Plato, disagreed. Methods used to determine whether someone could be a citizen or not could be based on wealth, identified by the amount of taxes one paid, or political participation, or heritage if both parents were citizens of the polis. The first form of citizenship was based on the way people lived in the ancient Greek times, in small-scale organic communities of the polis. Citizenship was not seen as a separate activity from the private life of the individual person, in the sense that there was not a distinction between public and private life. The obligations of citizenship were deeply connected into one’s everyday life in the polis.
BTW, the Mestizos in South America also define themselves as Castellanos and they segregate themselves from Amerindians.
So "ethnocentrism" and "isolationism" does not prove anything.
This Armenia guy could be easily blackmailed , too, he owned a lot to people that saved him from prision!
noemon wrote:No you haven't...
Certainly one of the most telling indicators in this matter was the prevalence of intermarriage. Intermarriage was even more common out in the countryside and among the military where there was not as much of a wealth and status difference between the Egyptians and Greeks. In all fairness, it should be pointed out that in almost every case the documentation shows a Greek or Macedonian man marrying an Egyptian woman and seldom an Egyptian man marrying a Greek woman. The law seems to have been that the children inherited their ethnic identification through the father. A Greek woman marrying an Egyptian man would probably be losing her status (“marrying down”). However, in the end run, Egyptian culture was always more tolerant in its outlook than the Greek.
http://realhistoryww.com/world_history/ ... gypt_4.htm
noemon wrote:... and even if Greeks had sex with foreign women, their offspring would not have been considered a legal citizen in any ancient Greek state whether in Greece or Egypt or Persia.
noemon wrote:Btw, the western Nordic world has had far less restrictions on citizenship and marriage than ancient Greeks and they still have not turned brown.
noemon wrote:And there is plenty of evidence of modern Germans and English people marrying Arabs and others.
noemon wrote:So all the historians that point out German complicity in the Armenian genocide ...
noemon wrote: The funny thing is that you brought this upon yourself when you started blaming the Brits, of course forgetting that the Germans were official Turkish allies.
In 1851, correspondence between Lord Stanley, whose father became British Prime Minister the following year, and Benjamin Disraeli, who became Chancellor of the Exchequer alongside him, records Disraeli's proto-Zionist views: "He then unfolded a plan of restoring the nation to Palestine—said the country was admirably suited for them—the financiers all over Europe might help—the Porte is weak—the Turks/holders of property could be bought out—this, he said, was the object of his life...." Coningsby was merely a feelermy views were not fully developed at that time—since then all I have written has been for one purpose. The man who should restore the Hebrew race to their country would be the Messiah—the real saviour of prophecy!" He did not add formally that he aspired to play this part, but it was evidently implied. He thought very highly of the capabilities of the country, and hinted that his chief object in acquiring power here would be to promote the return". 26 years later, Disraeli wrote in his article entitled "The Jewish Question is the Oriental Quest" (1877) that within fifty years, a nation of one million Jews would reside in Palestine under the guidance of the British.
In the new British strategic thinking, the Zionists appeared as a potential ally capable of safeguarding British imperial interests in the region. Furthermore, as British war prospects dimmed throughout 1917, the War Cabinet calculated that supporting a Jewish entity in Palestine would mobilize America's influential Jewish community to support United States intervention in the war and sway the large number of Jewish Bolsheviks who participated in the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution to keep Russia in the war. Fears were also voiced in the Foreign Office that if Britain did not come out in favor of a Jewish entity in Palestine the Germans would preempt them. Finally, both Lloyd George and Balfour were devout churchgoers who attached great religious significance to the proposed reinstatement of the Jews in their ancient homeland.
The negotiations for a Jewish entity were carried out by Weizmann, who greatly impressed Balfour and maintained important links with the British media. In support of the Zionist cause, his protracted and skillful negotiations with the Foreign Office were climaxed on November 2, 1917, by the letter from the foreign secretary to Lord Rothschild, which became known as the Balfour Declaration. This document declared the British government's "sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations," viewed with favor "the establishment in Palestine of a National Home for the Jewish People," and announced an intent to facilitate the achievement of this objective. The letter added the provision of "it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."
The Balfour Declaration radically changed the status of the Zionist movement. It promised support from a major world power and gave the Zionists international recognition. Zionism was transformed by the British pledge from a quixotic dream into a legitimate and achievable undertaking. For these reasons, the Balfour Declaration was widely criticized throughout the Arab world, and especially in Palestine, as contrary to the spirit of British pledges contained in the Husayn-McMahon correspondence.
On December 9, 1917, five weeks after the Balfour Declaration, British troops led by General Sir Edmund Allenby took Jerusalem from the Turks; Turkish forces in Syria were subsequently defeated; an armistice was concluded with Turkey on October 31, 1918; and all of Palestine came under British military rule.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso ... y/ww1.html
How Herzl Sold Out the Armenians
He supported the brutal Ottoman sultan against them, believing this would get the sultan to sell Palestine to the Jews.
read more: http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.654393
ArtAllm wrote:A Greek man could marry any women he wanted, and the children were considered Greek. With Greek women it was different.
They were isolated by natural barriers in North Europe. BTW, the Goth and Vandals that conquered Tunisia and other African countries could not leave any traces, they disappeared and the sea of brown people.
And now use your brain and think about the history of the 20th century.
History records a lot of the Roman emperors as blonde and blue-eyed. The aristocracy didn't necessarily mix with the plebs, so it is quite possible. http://www.theapricity.com/earlson/history/emperors.htm
blackjack21 wrote:History records a lot of the Roman emperors as blonde and blue-eyed. The aristocracy didn't necessarily mix with the plebs, so it is quite possible. http://www.theapricity.com/earlson/history/emperors.htm
Marius and Cicero are notable examples of novi homines in the late Republic, when many of Rome's richest and most powerful men—such as Lucullus, Crassus, and Pompeius—were plebeian nobles. Some or perhaps many noble plebeians, including Cicero and Lucullus, aligned their political interests with the faction of optimates, conservatives who sought to preserve senatorial prerogatives.
The Sabbaticus wrote:The Roman empire was routinely invaded by Celtic tribal armies in the pre-Christian days, many of whom came from Germanic areas. It stands to reason that they would leave their genetic imprint behind. Similarly they invaded the various Greek city states and traded extensively with them.
Secondly, invasion go hand-in-hand with rapes, especially when the Romans were defeated. And slavery tends to result in bastard children.
There was a period of several hundreds years until the Romans finally developed an effective military strategy to deal with the Celtic invasions (and migratory movements).
And the citizenship legalities are irrelevant, as these bastard children didn't just die off and disappear. At one point either they became citizens, or their children did.
As for the slave issue, these slaves bred and added their genes to the regional gene pool. This is indisputable. The legality issues address the reality of this fact. And slaves were capable of becoming freemen.
noemon wrote:A mixed child did not have citizenship rights in any Greek state in the antiquity.
Since the Greeks largely came into the country as soldiers, the men amongst them must have been very much more numerous than women. Many of them, we know from the papyri, had European wives, but the supply of European wives can hardly have gone round. Many Greeks and Macedonians married natives. From this continual mixture of blood, the racial difference in Ptolemaic Egypt grew less and less with succeeding generations. Large numbers of people later on who called themselves Greeks were mainly Egyptian in blood.
From about 150 B.C. it becomes common in the papyri to p87find people who bear both a Greek and an Egyptian name. For instance, we find at the end of the 2nd century a Greek called Dryton, whose daughters (no doubt by an Egyptian mother) in one papyrus have Greek names, in another have Egyptian names side by side with their Greek names, and in a third their Egyptian names only.10 A Hermocles has three sons, of whom the eldest is called Heraclides and the two others have the Egyptian names of Nechutes and Psechons. In a list of Greek cultivators (about 112 B.C.) we find Harmiysis son of Harmiysis, Harphaesis son of Petosiris, etc.11 Probably few Greeks of pure blood took Egyptian names. On the other hand, many pure Egyptians may have assumed Greek names. In any case it becomes impossible after the middle of the 2d century to tell by the name alone whether a man or woman is Greek or Egyptian.
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/G ... P/4A*.html
noemon wrote:...Brits & Zionists were anti-western pro-Turkish more than the Germans who were officially pro-Turkish and helping them conduct their Christian Genocide.
Major General Otto von Lossow, acting military attaché and head of the German Military Plenipotentiary in the Ottoman Empire, spoke to Ottoman intentions in a conference held in Batum in 1918:
The Turks have embarked upon the "total extermination of the Armenians in Transcaucasia ... The aim of Turkish policy is, as I have reiterated, the taking of possession of Armenian districts and the extermination of the Armenians. Talaat's government wants to destroy all Armenians, not just in Turkey but also outside Turkey. On the basis of all the reports and news coming to me here in Tiflis there hardly can be any doubt that the Turks systematically are aiming at the extermination of the few hundred thousand Armenians whom they left alive until now.:349
In 1903, 12 English companies with capital of 60 million rubles were functioning in Baku region. In 1912, Anglo-Dutch Shell obtained 80% of the shares of the Caspian-Black Sea Society "Mazut", which had belonged to De Rothschild Frères.
Other British firms purchased oil operations from Hajji Zeynalabdin Taghiyev.
In 1898, the Russian oil industry produced more than the U.S. oil production level. At that time, approximately 8 million tons were being produced (160,000 barrels (25,000 m3) of oil per day). By 1901, Baku produced more than half of the world's oil (11 million tons or 212,000 barrels (33,700 m3) of oil per day), and 55% of all Russian oil. Approximately 1.2 million tons of Baku kerosene were also sold abroad.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum ... Azerbaijan
Herzl went to London to meet Avetis Nazarbekian, the leader of the Henshags, the Armenian Social-Revolutionaries. The Zionist told their go-between:
I want to make it clear to this revolutionary that the Armenians should now make their peace with the Sultan, without prejudice to their later claims when Turkey is partitioned. 
On 13 July Herzl met the Armenian:
I promised I would try to get the Sultan to stop the massacres and new arrests, as a token of his good will. But he would hardly release the prisoners in advance, as Nazarbek desired. I explained to him in vain that, after all, the revolutionaries could watch the course of the peace negotiations without disarming, with their guns at their feet. 
Herzl’s failure with the Armenians did not discourage him. On 17 April 1897, Turkey went to war with Greece in retaliation for Athens having backed the liberation struggle of their co-nationals on Crete. He jumped at the chance to publicly show the Porte that Zionism could be of assistance to Turkey. He wrote to Mahmud Nedim Pasha on 28 April:
I beg to congratulate Your Excellency on the splendid victories of Turkish arms. The desire of several Jewish students to attach themselves voluntarily to the armed forces of His Majesty the Sultan is a small token of the friendship and gratitude which we Jews feel for Turkey. Herr and in several other places I have organized committees to initiate collections of money for wounded Turkish soldiers. 
Herzl was wasting his time. Nothing could convince the Turks to give him Palestine, but officially Herzl maintained his open pro-Sultan policy.
https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/d ... onstan.htm
ArtAllm wrote:I do not know what antiquity you are talking about, but in the Empire of Alexander it was a common thing, and there are a lot of documents that prove that.
your source part which you left off wrote:In the three Greek cities in Egypt, indeed, it was probably illegal for the members of the citizen-body to contact marriages with natives, and the citizens of these cities may be thought of as retaining their pure Hellenic stock through the Ptolemaic period. But it was otherwise with the multitude of Greeks resident in Egypt, who did not belong to the citizen-body of one of the three cities, whether they were domiciled in the cities or had their homes in some Egyptian town or village.
Here is what a German general wrote in 1918:
The Sabbaticus wrote:Except that the Celts aren't a singular group, instead they're many tribal groups, inhabiting a vast area, including Germany, the Alps, etc.
The Immortal Goon wrote:This, alone, should be enough to undercut your own argument. "I can't say what these Celts looked like, but we can imagine some of them might have had blonde hair, thus Aryan Supermen created civilization because people with black hair can't."
The people that live in the areas now that you're speaking about are largely the result of invasion.
The people that lived there back then are more of a mystery, though if we are going to look at, "Celts," as problematic as that term is, we're best looking at the Basque as representative people:
And, again, the Irish who are generally regarded as a grouping of Celts (again, as problematic as this is) are mostly related to the Basque in the Western regions where there were fewer Vikings and other raiders coming in. These people tend to be Black Irish. Here is someone that is Black Irish that sin't Colin Ferrell:
The lighting's not really fair on that, but here he is again:
Not really nordic supermen.
According to Diodorus Siculus:
The Gauls are tall of body with rippling muscles and white of skin and their hair is blond, and not only naturally so for they also make it their practice by artificial means to increase the distinguishing colour which nature has given it. For they are always washing their hair in limewater and they pull it back from the forehead to the nape of the neck, with the result that their appearance is like that of Satyrs and Pans since the treatment of their hair makes it so heavy and coarse that it differs in no respect from the mane of horses. Some of them shave the beard but others let it grow a little; and the nobles shave their cheeks but they let the moustache grow until it covers the mouth.
noemon wrote:The sack of Rome in 387 BC happened before the Roman Empire when Rome was at infant stages yet and it took 800 years for anyone to come near Rome again. You must be really desperate to make this argument and I take it that is why you forgot to mention these details. And how do you imagine it happened, these guys came in stole all the jewellery and then were driven back to their forests and in this case very quickly as well.
a) Foreign slaves could never become citizens, neither they nor their children. Ethnic-kin that had been enslaved by debt could become free and regain citizenship, a citizenship that was once had and lost, not the ones that never had it. Slaves producing offspring was an exception for them not something that simply goes without say not only out of legal reason but out of practical reasons as well(.ie how can a slave realistically make a family, ofc there were types of slaves that should be better be called serfs that were community slaves like the Helots in Sparta and they had homes, families and so on, but these types of slaves could not be bought or sold and they were property of the state not individuals and they were Greeks). There was a huge variety of types of slaves, not all the defeated were enslaved, it depended on the deal that followed and there were several categories in people heads, creating an onion, was the slave from the city-state? was the slave Greek or Roman? was he the type of slave that was allowed to reproduce? was he the type that could buy his freedom? was he the type of slave that after buying his freedom could become a citizen? what kind of social mobility are you seriously expecting here? And what kind of a foreign % do you believe that eventually made it? What kind of a racially foreign % do you think made it? You are saying that people who were institutionally forbidden to mix with people from other cities in the same country speaking the same language somehow managed to mix not only with linguistic foreigners but with racially different foreigners as well. When today you can mix freely and it is still not happening.
b) The vast majority of Greek and Roman slaves in the antiquity were in fact Greeks and Italians.
c) Barbarians were routinely exterminated, scattered & resettled in the fringes.
d) There is a very clear process of Hellenisation & Romanisation in the antiquity and that process is very well-documented and it is as I have described it. This process did not happen just like that with the snap of a finger every time some barbarian sacked a city and was then summarily exterminated. Christianity itself is the culmination of that process and the groups that were eventually allowed to join in were specific also.
And no, my argument isn't weak, as the Celtic invasions
Where there are people, there are children. No book of law will change this fact.
Romanisation of conquered groups would indicate gradual expansion and incorporation of other ethnic groups into Roman civilization.
Drlee, will you be supporting Senator Sanders if […]
I agree with Ardern. Traditionally Australia and N[…]
There's definitely a difference between austerity […]
The impeached president Trump propaganda apparatus[…]