StarDestroyer.Net BBS

For sure, but asking 'what would have to happen for me to express r defend racist ideas' is an interesting question

Confirmation bias. Viewing individual events out of context but related to the suspicion thus reinforcing it.

At least that's one way.

I just asked because it was an odd usage of the term "Iron Age". Which was defined by the advent of ferrous metallurgy. I know that a society without iron-working can be much more sophisticated than one with it, Britain around 0 CE to Babylon under Hammurabi for example. I know that Native American civilization made cities with hundreds of thousands of people and all that.

Zor

Ziggy Stardust wrote:

ArmorPierce wrote: No they're not. The mongols were a mix or turk andd mongolian tribes and ghenghis khan himself was a turk ethnically and the conquerors were mostly absorbed into the cultures they conquered.

Genghis Khan was not a Turk. First of all, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you meant "Turkic," which is actually quite distinct from "Turk."

Although the Mongols share many similarities with the Turkic peoples to the west of their traditional homelands, there is no evidence that this is anything but the result of later syncretic blending. Genghis himself was a Shiwei; they most likely originated from the Donghu confederation, which was destroyed by invading Turkic tribes around 150 BCE. The exact origins of the Mongols with respect to the Chinese and the Turkic peoples they cohabited the region with are unclear.

In any case, modern Mongols still trace their genetic ancestry back to the Mongols of Genghis day, so it is still fallacious to claim modern Mongols aren't "true" Mongols.

Yes I meant turkic but anyway many people where part of the mongolian empire including those falling outside present day mongolia. Mongolia is not a continuation of the mongolian empire but it did comprise people that were part of it. I ve read some sources stating that he was turkic but the evidence seems shaky at best mostly based on names and language and myths so ill withdraw that assertion

Comparing modern day mongolia is like comparing the holy roman empire to the roman empire, or saying that italy is a continuation of the roman empire. The roman empire did not just comprise of modern day italians neither. In fact the direct successor state that survived the collapse of the western roman empire was mostly greek.

Zor wrote:I just asked because it was an odd usage of the term "Iron Age". Which was defined by the advent of ferrous metallurgy. I know that a society without iron-working can be much more sophisticated than one with it, Britain around 0 CE to Babylon under Hammurabi for example. I know that Native American civilization made cities with hundreds of thousands of people and all that.

Zor

Northwest Coast societies used and worked iron (and copper) extensively, although they didn't possess the technology to smelt it. There is evidence to suggest there was an active iron trade across the Bering Strait, although this hadn't been much studied at the time when I read it (about 10 years back). At the time you could find house sized boulders of nearly pure copper in some parts of British Columbia. Daggers with fifteen to eighteen long blades(if you don't want to call them swords) and lance heads of the same length wrought from copper or iron were common weapons at the time.

ArmorPierce wrote:Comparing modern day mongolia is like comparing the holy roman empire to the roman empire, or saying that italy is a continuation of the roman empire. The roman empire did not just comprise of modern day italians neither. In fact the direct successor state that survived the collapse of the western roman empire was mostly greek.

No it wasn't. Language does not equal ethnicity or we would all be English. They were Romans, nothing more, nothing less.

ArmorPierce wrote:Yes I meant turkic but anyway many people where part of the mongolian empire including those falling outside present day mongolia. Mongolia is not a continuation of the mongolian empire but it did comprise people that were part of it. I ve read some sources stating that he was turkic but the evidence seems shaky at best mostly based on names and language and myths so ill withdraw that assertion

I've heard that one before. It is an outcropping of turkish nationalism which has produced such wonderful works of pseudoscience, which all aim to justify that every steppe nation that employed horses was turkic. Really nice methodology behind that too. After all, according to these nationalists, attila was a turk as well.

Thanas wrote:

ArmorPierce wrote:Comparing modern day mongolia is like comparing the holy roman empire to the roman empire, or saying that italy is a continuation of the roman empire. The roman empire did not just comprise of modern day italians neither. In fact the direct successor state that survived the collapse of the western roman empire was mostly greek.

No it wasn't. Language does not equal ethnicity or we would all be English. They were Romans, nothing more, nothing less.

I do agree that they were roman. Just wanted to draw distinction between them vs other states or empires that went on to claim the land that was where the roman empire originated from and the fact that these people were in fact not roman.

Thanas wrote: I've heard that one before. It is an outcropping of turkish nationalism which has produced such wonderful works of pseudoscience, which all aim to justify that every steppe nation that employed horses was turkic. Really nice methodology behind that too. After all, according to these nationalists, attila was a turk as well.

Wait ... are there actually people that claim that the Huns were Turkic?!

I don't support having two classes of people beholden to the same government. No nation can be whole with two classes of citizens that should otherwise be treated equally. All peoples were treated poorly in the past but asking Canadians to pay to support the natives until the end of time is like saying that Germany should be forced to pay an amount to Israel each year for eternity. Or like asking Italy to pay for any wrongs Rome may be accused of.

This is absurdist. Nations with distinct identities that happen to be under one sovereign state should be dealt with separately. Basques have the right to different laws than Castillians and Aragonese, Bretons deserve different rights and laws than regular Frenchmen; Alsatians actually have them to this day. Law needs to reflect cultural structure, which means it should be radically different for the First Nations. If anything, they have been homogenized too much, and government needs to take more measures to promote their native culture and native systems of managing their own affairs and own development. Culture is a reflection of not merely history but also the ecology of the region you live in, and in a sprawling country stretched across many climatic zones, rigid centralization can be a bad thing. Cultures which reflect thousands of years of memetic adaptation to local ecology are things which should be cherished and promoted, not crushed by an apparent robotic obsession with creating neat, simple, homogeneous states.

Ziggy Stardust wrote:

Thanas wrote: I've heard that one before. It is an outcropping of turkish nationalism which has produced such wonderful works of pseudoscience, which all aim to justify that every steppe nation that employed horses was turkic. Really nice methodology behind that too. After all, according to these nationalists, attila was a turk as well.

Wait ... are there actually people that claim that the Huns were Turkic?!

They are part of an establishment where genocide denial is official history and saying otherwise can land you in prison. What do you expect?

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Ziggy Stardust wrote:

Thanas wrote: I've heard that one before. It is an outcropping of turkish nationalism which has produced such wonderful works of pseudoscience, which all aim to justify that every steppe nation that employed horses was turkic. Really nice methodology behind that too. After all, according to these nationalists, attila was a turk as well.

Wait ... are there actually people that claim that the Huns were Turkic?!

Of course and to my knowledge it is still taught in Turkish schools (bTW, they are hardly alone in there, the Bulgarian and Georgian establishment hold similar silly claims).

ArmorPierce wrote:I do agree that they were roman. Just wanted to draw distinction between them vs other states or empires that went on to claim the land that was where the roman empire originated from and the fact that these people were in fact not roman.

That depends on the degree of surviving Romans being assimilated there, wouldn't you say? For example, did you know that the Franks and Visigoth administration was essentially filled with Romans due to them understanding the tax system and possessing the necessary skills? The history of the Germanic kingdoms is filled with intermarriages etc so it is very hard to proclaim a nation Roman or not Roman at least during the time period to 600.

I should add though that when neighbours hate each other they often try to claim parts of history for themselves. To this day people in Germany and France squabble whether Corolus Magnus is supposed to be called Charlemagne or Karl der Große, whether he was French or German etc. Opus moderandi for nationalist states seem to be to adhere to a certain origin mythology, oftentimes one of great strife and combat and push that in order to justify current politics. Kinda like "Germans have always rejected the weak decadent west-of-the-rhine-dwellers since the time of Arminius Siegfried".