Clovis Merovingian
Prestige/VIP
Elder
Posts: 2,673
Likes: 1,757
Meta-Ethnicity: Anglo-American
Ethnicity: Deep Southerner
Country: My State and my Region are my country
Region: The Deep South
Location: South Carolina
Ancestry: Gaelic (patrilineal), English, Ulster Scots/Scots Irish, Scottish, German, Swiss German, Swedish, Manx, Finnish, Norman French/Quebecois (distantly), Dutch (distantly)
Taxonomy: Borreby/Alpine/ Nordid mix
Y-DNA: R-S660/R-DF109
mtDNA: T1a1
Politics: Conservative
Religion: Christian
Hero: Andrew Jackson, Thomas Jefferson, James K. Polk
Age: 30
Philosophy: I try to find out what is true as best I can.
|
Post by Clovis Merovingian on May 11, 2021 9:15:01 GMT
Just for fun I've created a map where I've divided the world among civilizational lines. By civilization I mean the the broadest cultural classifications that it makes sense to group peoples into. I got the idea from reading Samuel P. Huntington's Clash of Civilizations but I think my map is more precise and intuitive than his was. I made many considerations in classifying these countries into civilizations such as race, religion, culture, and the intuitive way people talk about these regions in everyday discourse. If anyone has any questions as to why I've made these classifications let me know.
|
|
|
Post by joustos on May 11, 2021 14:57:57 GMT
Clovis, the mapping looks good, but the side information ("legend") is impossible to read. Can you use larger fonts? I cannot change them on my receiving end. Thank you.
|
|
Clovis Merovingian
Prestige/VIP
Elder
Posts: 2,673
Likes: 1,757
Meta-Ethnicity: Anglo-American
Ethnicity: Deep Southerner
Country: My State and my Region are my country
Region: The Deep South
Location: South Carolina
Ancestry: Gaelic (patrilineal), English, Ulster Scots/Scots Irish, Scottish, German, Swiss German, Swedish, Manx, Finnish, Norman French/Quebecois (distantly), Dutch (distantly)
Taxonomy: Borreby/Alpine/ Nordid mix
Y-DNA: R-S660/R-DF109
mtDNA: T1a1
Politics: Conservative
Religion: Christian
Hero: Andrew Jackson, Thomas Jefferson, James K. Polk
Age: 30
Philosophy: I try to find out what is true as best I can.
|
Post by Clovis Merovingian on May 12, 2021 2:20:22 GMT
Clovis, the mapping looks good, but the side information ("legend") is impossible to read. Can you use larger fonts? I cannot change them on my receiving end. Thank you. Yeah, so I used a certain website to make the map but imported the picture into imgur so I'd have a URL to post a picture with. I'm not tech savvy enough to change the fonts but I can list in order the legend here so that's what I'll do. World Civilizations European Civilization East Asian Civilization Islamic Civilization Latin American Civilization Sub Saharan African Civilization Indian Civilization Caribbean Civilization Native American Civilization Austronesian Civilization Australo-Melanesian Civilization Jewish Civilization
|
|
antor
Junior Member
Posts: 87
Likes: 51
Country: Sweden
Politics: Middle Left something
Religion: Apatheist
Age: 35
|
Post by antor on May 12, 2021 12:44:19 GMT
Personally I Think it's problematic to draw lines whatever they may be. I mean in country A there are a bunch of ppl more like the residents of country B. Borders just divide us. But I realize the borders have an analytic meaning. They help us understand. They at least the help the common Joe understand. So whether to optimize the borders for common Joe or for the intellectual, that is an interesting question.
|
|
Clovis Merovingian
Prestige/VIP
Elder
Posts: 2,673
Likes: 1,757
Meta-Ethnicity: Anglo-American
Ethnicity: Deep Southerner
Country: My State and my Region are my country
Region: The Deep South
Location: South Carolina
Ancestry: Gaelic (patrilineal), English, Ulster Scots/Scots Irish, Scottish, German, Swiss German, Swedish, Manx, Finnish, Norman French/Quebecois (distantly), Dutch (distantly)
Taxonomy: Borreby/Alpine/ Nordid mix
Y-DNA: R-S660/R-DF109
mtDNA: T1a1
Politics: Conservative
Religion: Christian
Hero: Andrew Jackson, Thomas Jefferson, James K. Polk
Age: 30
Philosophy: I try to find out what is true as best I can.
|
Post by Clovis Merovingian on May 12, 2021 13:57:31 GMT
Personally I Think it's problematic to draw lines whatever they may be. I mean in country A there are a bunch of ppl more like the residents of country B. Borders just divide us. But I realize the borders have an analytic meaning. They help us understand. They at least the help the common Joe understand. So whether to optimize the borders for common Joe or for the intellectual, that is an interesting question. I think that I probably have the opposite opinion to you on this. I think that humanity is already deeply divided by many things, culture, language, religion, race, ancestry, value systems etc. and that humans are naturally tribalistic and violent and prone to hate the other. I think that proper borders just make these differences official and I think that they should be made official because otherwise there will be strife between peoples. I live in the United States of America where our divisions upon racial and political lines are well documented. Our political divisions are a result of ethno regional differences in our country. Different groups of people settled different parts of the United States creating different cultural regions that have value systems that are completely incompatible to one another. I live in South Carolina, a Southern state founded by Caribbean slave lords who fancied themselves as European aristocrats and drilled into our state the reactionary values of old Europe and thus our state is extremely socially conservative, very Christian fundamentalist, and has a type of martial mindset that is open to violent social policies like the death penalty, corporal punishment, and a zealous cherishing of gun rights. South Carolina has also historically favored a weak government, strict constructionist view to the constitution, and preferred state sovereignty over the sovereignty of the Federal government seceding from the Union or threatening to secede many times through its history. The ideals of South Carolina is more oriented towards individualism than the collective good. Massachusetts is the polar opposite of South Carolina, it was founded by Puritans who wanted to create a Calvinist Utopia in the American wilderness. Their religious impulse secularized into modern progressivism. This state is mostly atheistic and socially progressive and sees the government as a positive good and thus supports a large government that works to reform and perfect society in any way that benefits the collective good as well as fighting perceived social evils. The Puritan mindset is one of collectivism and an constant striving to perfect society morally and institutionally to try and create through secular means what those Puritans tried to do through religious means. Violence is far less common and more taboo in Massachusetts than it is in South Carolina and this state along with New England and the Yankee settled areas of the United States have often have been the center of most anti war movements and gun control is much more accepted in these states. The Yankees have a view of the constitution that is broad construction and heavily abuses the idea of there being implied powers in the constitution. In matters of federalism they have always favored using the Federal government to impose their moralistic utopian cultural values on everyone else. Now there is a wealth of things that I can mention about these two states and the regions they belong to and the vast cultural differences between them, but needless to say these two states have always been at war in our history and that war turned hot in the Civil War when South Carolina epitomized most the Confederacy and Massachusetts epitomized most the Union. Having these two states and the regions they belong to under one government is like having Scandinavians and South African Boers in one union and each having a say in policies that affect the others lives. Why should anyone in Massachusetts, California, Oregon, or Minnesota have any say in my life as a South Carolinian and why should I have any say in theirs? We are culturally worlds apart and if we try to run a government together there will be and is heavy strife. Everywhere in the world where there is great diversity there is some kind of strife, whether you're talking about the Balkans, Northern Ireland, any country in Africa, China, or literally any place I could name. Borders exist because differences exist between people, differences that are profound. The nation state exists because each of these peoples should have the right to rule themselves by their own values free from the values of others and not affecting the lives of others. The concept is called self determination and its wonderful. That's my opinion anyways.
|
|
antor
Junior Member
Posts: 87
Likes: 51
Country: Sweden
Politics: Middle Left something
Religion: Apatheist
Age: 35
|
Post by antor on May 12, 2021 14:28:05 GMT
Well I am going to be honest and say I don't really follow all the details there but what I discern is that you seek explanation from history mostly. Whereas I who has a background in natural science am more interested in what is, and why, in sort of a non humanistic way. I dont know if that makes sense. But anyway, to me it seems borders arise semi-randomly and then ppl afterwards attribute them to this or that reign, where reign is a very loose term. And even longer after that, rulers play on past struggles and whatnot to reinforce belief in that a nation exists. In some way. No nation would exist that has no stories to be told. And that's a human element, now you might be correct in saying that human element is what makes nations possible in the first place. I don't know. That's an interesting question. Would a civilization exist with say machines replaced for humans?
|
|
|
Post by thesageofmainstreet on May 12, 2021 17:56:16 GMT
Well I am going to be honest and say I don't really follow all the details there but what I discern is that you seek explanation from history mostly. Whereas I who has a background in natural science am more interested in what is, and why, in sort of a non humanistic way. I dont know if that makes sense. But anyway, to me it seems borders arise semi-randomly and then ppl afterwards attribute them to this or that reign, where reign is a very loose term. And even longer after that, rulers play on past struggles and whatnot to reinforce belief in that a nation exists. In some way. No nation would exist that has no stories to be told. And that's a human element, now you might be correct in saying that human element is what makes nations possible in the first place. I don't know. That's an interesting question. Would a civilization exist with say machines replaced for humans? "Humanitarian Superpower" Following the Trend Against Proud Human Progress
What do Swedes think of The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo trilogy. To an American aware of what our decadent hereditary ruling class has been doing to us since that worthless HeirHead JFK got elected, Sweden seems to suffering from the same Postmodern decline.
Also, the hacker heroine should have confiscated the unearned wealth stolen from High IQs in the first place, not just because some plutocrat screwed over the man she loved. What a pathetic reason to finally stand up for such a limited Revenge of the Nerds.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on May 16, 2021 17:05:30 GMT
Unfortunately (or luckily?) I can't say about no other countries, except for Ukraine (and maybe Germany as a little). Plus, even such a view of mine is really messy. I don't have any good method to be sure in my questions. So, the base of mine to answer - is my own experience.
So, what do I think - Ukraine (and in mostly Russia, at least in some of its regions) is one of such countries which doesn't about to produce, but about to consume. Most of what in Ukraine as what we can side as 'civilization' is its copying the East Europe culture. It doesn't mean that Ukraine has no its own culture - no, I think I'm sure it has - and at the same time Ukraine is holding views of the other countries much more, than it can create it by itself. I won't say that Ukraine cannot do it, but it doesn't do it at a time.
I heard some lectures by epigones of I. Wallerstein, and unfortunately - because I usually try to be as far as possible from any social questions - I can remember no of his ideas. Besides, I don't remember Huntington's either. So, I'll try to attempt to define 'the civilization' by my own.
Okay, so I think that 'culture' is how people interact with nature; and particularly - what needs or goods, or which tools they invent or create to deal with nature. By 'nature' I mean mostly the nature. But the higher culture is the more requirement it must have to be able to deal with another countries or polices to live. So, to the culture we also should add the level of skill of interactions with the other countires. And plus to it - how that folk (or a group of folks) live together - their living style. In general, there are 3 points or criteria to try to define it.
Civilization is similar to have the own philosophy: it doesn't mean to be able to interact with the nature (in a wide sense of this word), but to produce something as one monolith program or a system. It's like to have its own program of how to - move through the nature, and the universe (and through any other deities; because we don't know yet - is the universe the limit?).
So, the civilization is a serious and profound unit that has its own unique and beauty.
Unlike the other theories mine is to compare civilizations with some systems - like cosmos and other ones.
Considering this one I think that Ukraine can't be put to one row with other civilizations. If Ukraine would conquer 7/8 of the world, then we could consider about its civilization.
And yes, I think that the method to conquer the territories: material and spiritual - is an important ability of any civilization. If one day the aliens from the outer space would land to earth, and nobody would be able to kick their metal a**e* away, then would be in a serious trouble.
Considering this last addition: the civilization is a force unit that pretends to reorganize the nature, the universe, or something more wider.
My point is - we must have as much as possible numbers of different civilizations to be able one day to fight with the other forms of life. We need to be able to unit our forces - like Gestalts in the series of the Transformers - to conquer all the cosmos and more wider territories. A man has to become the ruler of the universe... ...perhaps.
|
|
|
Post by joustos on May 16, 2021 19:57:31 GMT
Unfortunately (or luckily?) I can't say about no other countries, except for Ukraine (and maybe Germany as a little). Plus, even such a view of mine is really messy. I don't have any good method to be sure in my questions. So, the base of mine to answer - is my own experience. So, what do I think - Ukraine (and in mostly Russia, at least in some of its regions) is one of such countries which doesn't about to produce, but about to consume. Most of what in Ukraine as what we can side as 'civilization' is its copying the East Europe culture. It doesn't mean that Ukraine has no its own culture - no, I think I'm sure it has - and at the same time Ukraine is holding views of the other countries much more, than it can create it by itself. I won't say that Ukraine cannot do it, but it doesn't do it at a time. I heard some lectures by epigones of I. Wallerstein, and unfortunately - because I usually try to be as far as possible from any social questions - I can remember no of his ideas. Besides, I don't remember Huntington's either. So, I'll try to attempt to define 'the civilization' by my own. Okay, so I think that 'culture' is how people interact with nature; and particularly - what needs or goods, or which tools they invent or create to deal with nature. By 'nature' I mean mostly the nature. But the higher culture is the more requirement it must have to be able to deal with another countries or polices to live. So, to the culture we also should add the level of skill of interactions with the other countires. And plus to it - how that folk (or a group of folks) live together - their living style. In general, there are 3 points or criteria to try to define it. Civilization is similar to have the own philosophy: it doesn't mean to be able to interact with the nature (in a wide sense of this word), but to produce something as one monolith program or a system. It's like to have its own program of how to - move through the nature, and the universe (and through any other deities; because we don't know yet - is the universe the limit?). So, the civilization is a serious and profound unit that has its own unique and beauty. Unlike the other theories mine is to compare civilizations with some systems - like cosmos and other ones. Considering this one I think that Ukraine can't be put to one row with other civilizations. If Ukraine would conquer 7/8 of the world, then we could consider about its civilization. And yes, I think that the method to conquer the territories: material and spiritual - is an important ability of any civilization. If one day the aliens from the outer space would land to earth, and nobody would be able to kick their metal a**e* away, then would be in a serious trouble. Considering this last addition: the civilization is a force unit that pretends to reorganize the nature, the universe, or something more wider. My point is - we must have as much as possible numbers of different civilizations to be able one day to fight with the other forms of life. We need to be able to unit our forces - like Gestalts in the series of the Transformers - to conquer all the cosmos and more wider territories. A man has to become the ruler of the universe... ...perhaps. The two words, CULTURE and CIVILIZATION, have a history and unfortnately today they are used (often vaguely) about various groups. ensambles, or systems. Your definition of Culture comes close to its original meaning: Cultura, the cultivation of the earth [agri-culture]; today, (A) a colony of micro-organisms "cultivated" in a Petri-dish; a colony of corona-viruses; etc.(B) an ethnic culture: the language, religion/theism or Weltanschauung (world-image), biological race, laws and/or political organization, customs, educational istitutions, economic practices (of production, commerce, etc.), and arts or sports, that characterize a Tribe/People/Society. Civilization originally was the process of making foreigners Citizens [cives] of the Roman Republic; later: the high quality of a People's culture, which was exported to other Peoples/Nations. // Huntington's Clash of Civilizations = clash of ethnic cultures, their differences being responsible for the clashes. He did not deal with "internal" clashes, which are more frequent today, and are due to racial differences, if we make only a superficial analysis of a Nation like the U.S.A. // In your last paragraph I sense your expectation of a clash between the Earthlings and Aliens, an Huntingtonian fear. I do not subscribe to his idea that different cultures inevitably clash. If Aliens were on earth before, they did only good and (like ancient Greek gods), they intermarried with[some] humans, and begot the White Race, which is most advanced. There is no need of a world ruler or leader; we already have one, who, by means of money rather than an army, has created socio-political disasters and aims at the eimination of Whites.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on May 16, 2021 22:13:43 GMT
Unfortunately (or luckily?) I can't say about no other countries, except for Ukraine (and maybe Germany as a little). Plus, even such a view of mine is really messy. I don't have any good method to be sure in my questions. So, the base of mine to answer - is my own experience. So, what do I think - Ukraine (and in mostly Russia, at least in some of its regions) is one of such countries which doesn't about to produce, but about to consume. Most of what in Ukraine as what we can side as 'civilization' is its copying the East Europe culture. It doesn't mean that Ukraine has no its own culture - no, I think I'm sure it has - and at the same time Ukraine is holding views of the other countries much more, than it can create it by itself. I won't say that Ukraine cannot do it, but it doesn't do it at a time. I heard some lectures by epigones of I. Wallerstein, and unfortunately - because I usually try to be as far as possible from any social questions - I can remember no of his ideas. Besides, I don't remember Huntington's either. So, I'll try to attempt to define 'the civilization' by my own. Okay, so I think that 'culture' is how people interact with nature; and particularly - what needs or goods, or which tools they invent or create to deal with nature. By 'nature' I mean mostly the nature. But the higher culture is the more requirement it must have to be able to deal with another countries or polices to live. So, to the culture we also should add the level of skill of interactions with the other countires. And plus to it - how that folk (or a group of folks) live together - their living style. In general, there are 3 points or criteria to try to define it. Civilization is similar to have the own philosophy: it doesn't mean to be able to interact with the nature (in a wide sense of this word), but to produce something as one monolith program or a system. It's like to have its own program of how to - move through the nature, and the universe (and through any other deities; because we don't know yet - is the universe the limit?). So, the civilization is a serious and profound unit that has its own unique and beauty. Unlike the other theories mine is to compare civilizations with some systems - like cosmos and other ones. Considering this one I think that Ukraine can't be put to one row with other civilizations. If Ukraine would conquer 7/8 of the world, then we could consider about its civilization. And yes, I think that the method to conquer the territories: material and spiritual - is an important ability of any civilization. If one day the aliens from the outer space would land to earth, and nobody would be able to kick their metal a**e* away, then would be in a serious trouble. Considering this last addition: the civilization is a force unit that pretends to reorganize the nature, the universe, or something more wider. My point is - we must have as much as possible numbers of different civilizations to be able one day to fight with the other forms of life. We need to be able to unit our forces - like Gestalts in the series of the Transformers - to conquer all the cosmos and more wider territories. A man has to become the ruler of the universe... ...perhaps. The two words, CULTURE and CIVILIZATION, have a history and unfortnately today they are used (often vaguely) about various groups. ensambles, or systems. Your definition of Culture comes close to its original meaning: Cultura, the cultivation of the earth [agri-culture]; today, (A) a colony of micro-organisms "cultivated" in a Petri-dish; a colony of corona-viruses; etc.(B) an ethnic culture: the language, religion/theism or Weltanschauung (world-image), biological race, laws and/or political organization, customs, educational istitutions, economic practices (of production, commerce, etc.), and arts or sports, that characterize a Tribe/People/Society. Civilization originally was the process of making foreigners Citizens [cives] of the Roman Republic; later: the high quality of a People's culture, which was exported to other Peoples/Nations. // Huntington's Clash of Civilizations = clash of ethnic cultures, their differences being responsible for the clashes. He did not deal with "internal" clashes, which are more frequent today, and are due to racial differences, if we make only a superficial analysis of a Nation like the U.S.A. // In your last paragraph I sense your expectation of a clash between the Earthlings and Aliens, an Huntingtonian fear. I do not subscribe to his idea that different cultures inevitably clash. If Aliens were on earth before, they did only good and (like ancient Greek gods), they intermarried with[some] humans, and begot the White Race, which is most advanced. There is no need of a world ruler or leader; we already have one, who, by means of money rather than an army, has created socio-political disasters and aims at the eimination of Whites. I write in English badly... too badly. So, it could be: a) my lots of mistakes; b) your not precisely correct interpretations; c) some other factors (let's say "the alien's impact"). Surely, my view is a plain view. No, 'cultura' is not what exactly I take or aim. I put much more to it, but anyway. I think you've already put it to your comment. I am very grateful for your really detail explanations of Huntington's sociology or politology, whatever. It's not really good, but I personally and intentionally don't try to be so free of usage of terms like 'ethnicity', 'nation' and so on. Many of them, if not all of them, are empty for me. A union, a community, a fly group, a common group, a daily group, a routine group, a social institute, a society, tribes, families, dynasties, interunions, policies, villages, cities, towns, metropolises, megapolises, countries, states, federal unions, republics, nations, ethnicity... all of those terms are for me to be in a pretty disorder. I mean it would be good to categorize or conceptualize them at first, and I don't think I've already had. People's relations are too rich to simply describe it. For me even the futurology's theories are the same as the weather forecast, what to say about any sociological stuff? It's not like that - what I've written about 'the aliens'. No, not that =))) I said that it would be too rigorously and straight to claim that the Universe is everything, and vice versa. Maybe 'beyond the universe' there is something else. I know it may sound weird, especially if to understand 'beyond the universe' like a math determination. No, I don't take it strictly as the math formulation. I am just not sure all what a human knows is everything. Maybe I'm too Kantian in that now or more Lovecraftian. Anyway, a human isn't one and the only specie who has the privilege access to things.
|
|
ⲟⲩⲏⲣ ⲡⲁϩⲧⲉ
New Member
Posts: 21
Likes: 6
Meta-Ethnicity: Afro-Asiatic
Ethnicity: Cushitic
Region: Horn of Africa
Location: Africa
Ancestry: Sub-Saharan African
Taxonomy: Ethiopid
Y-DNA: E-M215
Politics: no political affiliation
Religion: Abrahamic
Age: 29
Philosophy: ⲙⲏⲓ
|
Post by ⲟⲩⲏⲣ ⲡⲁϩⲧⲉ on May 19, 2021 10:50:42 GMT
Unfortunately (or luckily?) I can't say about no other countries, except for Ukraine (and maybe Germany as a little). Plus, even such a view of mine is really messy. I don't have any good method to be sure in my questions. So, the base of mine to answer - is my own experience. So, what do I think - Ukraine (and in mostly Russia, at least in some of its regions) is one of such countries which doesn't about to produce, but about to consume. Most of what in Ukraine as what we can side as 'civilization' is its copying the East Europe culture. It doesn't mean that Ukraine has no its own culture - no, I think I'm sure it has - and at the same time Ukraine is holding views of the other countries much more, than it can create it by itself. I won't say that Ukraine cannot do it, but it doesn't do it at a time. I heard some lectures by epigones of I. Wallerstein, and unfortunately - because I usually try to be as far as possible from any social questions - I can remember no of his ideas. Besides, I don't remember Huntington's either. So, I'll try to attempt to define 'the civilization' by my own. Okay, so I think that 'culture' is how people interact with nature; and particularly - what needs or goods, or which tools they invent or create to deal with nature. By 'nature' I mean mostly the nature. But the higher culture is the more requirement it must have to be able to deal with another countries or polices to live. So, to the culture we also should add the level of skill of interactions with the other countires. And plus to it - how that folk (or a group of folks) live together - their living style. In general, there are 3 points or criteria to try to define it. Civilization is similar to have the own philosophy: it doesn't mean to be able to interact with the nature (in a wide sense of this word), but to produce something as one monolith program or a system. It's like to have its own program of how to - move through the nature, and the universe (and through any other deities; because we don't know yet - is the universe the limit?). So, the civilization is a serious and profound unit that has its own unique and beauty. Unlike the other theories mine is to compare civilizations with some systems - like cosmos and other ones. Considering this one I think that Ukraine can't be put to one row with other civilizations. If Ukraine would conquer 7/8 of the world, then we could consider about its civilization. And yes, I think that the method to conquer the territories: material and spiritual - is an important ability of any civilization. If one day the aliens from the outer space would land to earth, and nobody would be able to kick their metal a**e* away, then would be in a serious trouble. Considering this last addition: the civilization is a force unit that pretends to reorganize the nature, the universe, or something more wider. My point is - we must have as much as possible numbers of different civilizations to be able one day to fight with the other forms of life. We need to be able to unit our forces - like Gestalts in the series of the Transformers - to conquer all the cosmos and more wider territories. A man has to become the ruler of the universe... ...perhaps. The two words, CULTURE and CIVILIZATION, have a history and unfortnately today they are used (often vaguely) about various groups. ensambles, or systems. Your definition of Culture comes close to its original meaning: Cultura, the cultivation of the earth [agri-culture]; today, (A) a colony of micro-organisms "cultivated" in a Petri-dish; a colony of corona-viruses; etc.(B) an ethnic culture: the language, religion/theism or Weltanschauung (world-image), biological race, laws and/or political organization, customs, educational istitutions, economic practices (of production, commerce, etc.), and arts or sports, that characterize a Tribe/People/Society. Civilization originally was the process of making foreigners Citizens [cives] of the Roman Republic; later: the high quality of a People's culture, which was exported to other Peoples/Nations. // Huntington's Clash of Civilizations = clash of ethnic cultures, their differences being responsible for the clashes. He did not deal with "internal" clashes, which are more frequent today, and are due to racial differences, if we make only a superficial analysis of a Nation like the U.S.A. // In your last paragraph I sense your expectation of a clash between the Earthlings and Aliens, an Huntingtonian fear. I do not subscribe to his idea that different cultures inevitably clash. If Aliens were on earth before, they did only good and (like ancient Greek gods), they intermarried with[some] humans, and begot the White Race, which is most advanced. There is no need of a world ruler or leader; we already have one, who, by means of money rather than an army, has created socio-political disasters and aims at the eimination of Whites. Sorry I'm new, but just out of curiosity how is the white race(which I assume by that you mean Anglo-Saxon)the most advanced race, when civilization during the Bronze Age first arose outside of Europe, in Mesopotamia, Africa, and Pakistan? Egypt is the oldest centralized government, state, and monarchy in the world. The Egyptian state consolidated 5,000 years ago, when Narmer, likely a chieftain from Upper Egypt gradually conquered neighboring villages, before progressing to Lower Egypt as depicted on the Narmer palette discovered at Nekhen in the late 1800s. Even modern architectural feats of engineering and design pale-in-comparison to what was accomplished by the Egyptians 5000 years ago. Egypt's agricultural economy generated enough surplus to sustain and grow the countries population, allowing for massive building protects to be undertaken. The "white race" as you put it was not responsible for any of that. I find Indo-European cultures and civilizations fascinating, be it Indo-Aryan, Indo-Iranian, Slavic, Italic, Hellenic, Germanic, Celtic, etc. but I wouldn't say the "white race" is the most advanced.
|
|
|
Post by thesageofmainstreet on May 19, 2021 15:17:39 GMT
Unfortunately (or luckily?) I can't say about no other countries, except for Ukraine (and maybe Germany as a little). Plus, even such a view of mine is really messy. I don't have any good method to be sure in my questions. So, the base of mine to answer - is my own experience. So, what do I think - Ukraine (and in mostly Russia, at least in some of its regions) is one of such countries which doesn't about to produce, but about to consume. Most of what in Ukraine as what we can side as 'civilization' is its copying the East Europe culture. It doesn't mean that Ukraine has no its own culture - no, I think I'm sure it has - and at the same time Ukraine is holding views of the other countries much more, than it can create it by itself. I won't say that Ukraine cannot do it, but it doesn't do it at a time. I heard some lectures by epigones of I. Wallerstein, and unfortunately - because I usually try to be as far as possible from any social questions - I can remember no of his ideas. Besides, I don't remember Huntington's either. So, I'll try to attempt to define 'the civilization' by my own. Okay, so I think that 'culture' is how people interact with nature; and particularly - what needs or goods, or which tools they invent or create to deal with nature. By 'nature' I mean mostly the nature. But the higher culture is the more requirement it must have to be able to deal with another countries or polices to live. So, to the culture we also should add the level of skill of interactions with the other countires. And plus to it - how that folk (or a group of folks) live together - their living style. In general, there are 3 points or criteria to try to define it. Civilization is similar to have the own philosophy: it doesn't mean to be able to interact with the nature (in a wide sense of this word), but to produce something as one monolith program or a system. It's like to have its own program of how to - move through the nature, and the universe (and through any other deities; because we don't know yet - is the universe the limit?). So, the civilization is a serious and profound unit that has its own unique and beauty. Unlike the other theories mine is to compare civilizations with some systems - like cosmos and other ones. Considering this one I think that Ukraine can't be put to one row with other civilizations. If Ukraine would conquer 7/8 of the world, then we could consider about its civilization. And yes, I think that the method to conquer the territories: material and spiritual - is an important ability of any civilization. If one day the aliens from the outer space would land to earth, and nobody would be able to kick their metal a**e* away, then would be in a serious trouble. Considering this last addition: the civilization is a force unit that pretends to reorganize the nature, the universe, or something more wider. My point is - we must have as much as possible numbers of different civilizations to be able one day to fight with the other forms of life. We need to be able to unit our forces - like Gestalts in the series of the Transformers - to conquer all the cosmos and more wider territories. A man has to become the ruler of the universe... ...perhaps. The two words, CULTURE and CIVILIZATION, have a history and unfortnately today they are used (often vaguely) about various groups. ensambles, or systems. Your definition of Culture comes close to its original meaning: Cultura, the cultivation of the earth [agri-culture]; today, (A) a colony of micro-organisms "cultivated" in a Petri-dish; a colony of corona-viruses; etc.(B) an ethnic culture: the language, religion/theism or Weltanschauung (world-image), biological race, laws and/or political organization, customs, educational istitutions, economic practices (of production, commerce, etc.), and arts or sports, that characterize a Tribe/People/Society. Civilization originally was the process of making foreigners Citizens [cives] of the Roman Republic; later: the high quality of a People's culture, which was exported to other Peoples/Nations. // Huntington's Clash of Civilizations = clash of ethnic cultures, their differences being responsible for the clashes. He did not deal with "internal" clashes, which are more frequent today, and are due to racial differences, if we make only a superficial analysis of a Nation like the U.S.A. // In your last paragraph I sense your expectation of a clash between the Earthlings and Aliens, an Huntingtonian fear. I do not subscribe to his idea that different cultures inevitably clash. If Aliens were on earth before, they did only good and (like ancient Greek gods), they intermarried with[some] humans, and begot the White Race, which is most advanced. There is no need of a world ruler or leader; we already have one, who, by means of money rather than an army, has created socio-political disasters and aims at the eimination of Whites. The Road to Perdition Is Patrician American civilization had lost its way, led astray by inferior and confused but conceited and persistent self-appointed leaders. The spoiled sheltered snobs in the ruling class must be overthrown or they will run us into a ditch.
|
|
|
Post by joustos on May 20, 2021 17:18:54 GMT
The two words, CULTURE and CIVILIZATION, have a history and unfortnately today they are used (often vaguely) about various groups. ensambles, or systems. Your definition of Culture comes close to its original meaning: Cultura, the cultivation of the earth [agri-culture]; today, (A) a colony of micro-organisms "cultivated" in a Petri-dish; a colony of corona-viruses; etc.(B) an ethnic culture: the language, religion/theism or Weltanschauung (world-image), biological race, laws and/or political organization, customs, educational istitutions, economic practices (of production, commerce, etc.), and arts or sports, that characterize a Tribe/People/Society. Civilization originally was the process of making foreigners Citizens [cives] of the Roman Republic; later: the high quality of a People's culture, which was exported to other Peoples/Nations. // Huntington's Clash of Civilizations = clash of ethnic cultures, their differences being responsible for the clashes. He did not deal with "internal" clashes, which are more frequent today, and are due to racial differences, if we make only a superficial analysis of a Nation like the U.S.A. // In your last paragraph I sense your expectation of a clash between the Earthlings and Aliens, an Huntingtonian fear. I do not subscribe to his idea that different cultures inevitably clash. If Aliens were on earth before, they did only good and (like ancient Greek gods), they intermarried with[some] humans, and begot the White Race, which is most advanced. There is no need of a world ruler or leader; we already have one, who, by means of money rather than an army, has created socio-political disasters and aims at the elimination of Whites. Sorry I'm new, but just out of curiosity how is the white race(which I assume by that you mean Anglo-Saxon)the most advanced race, when civilization during the Bronze Age first arose outside of Europe, in Mesopotamia, Africa, and Pakistan? Egypt is the oldest centralized government, state, and monarchy in the world. The Egyptian state consolidated 5,000 years ago, when Narmer, likely a chieftain from Upper Egypt gradually conquered neighboring villages, before progressing to Lower Egypt as depicted on the Narmer palette discovered at Nekhen in the late 1800s. Even modern architectural feats of engineering and design pale-in-comparison to what was accomplished by the Egyptians 5000 years ago. Egypt's agricultural economy generated enough surplus to sustain and grow the countries population, allowing for massive building protects to be undertaken. The "white race" as you put it was not responsible for any of that. I find Indo-European cultures and civilizations fascinating, be it Indo-Aryan, Indo-Iranian, Slavic, Italic, Hellenic, Germanic, Celtic, etc. but I wouldn't say the "white race" is the most advanced. Welcome, ........ can you please transcribe your username into Roman letters? I read it as OU ER PAHTE [omicron, ypsilon, eta, etc.] but I am not well learned in Coptic. I suppose that the above H is already a Romanization of the letter that looks like an inverted S and stands for a rough aspiration, but there is no vowel after it [ as in the Roman "hoc"]. Anyway, how do you translate it?// Reaction to your final paragraph: Ethnically, or Race-wise, what were the people who created the Indo-European cultures or civilizations? For many reasons I have investigated, I suppose they were Whites, that is, Caucasoid, not Mongoloid, Negroid, or other, people, or hybrids thereof. (I do not identify races with nationalities or "continentalities". So, Europe is not the land of the Caucasoids. Africa is not the land of the Negroids. Etc.) A race is a biological breed which comprises exterior traits and cerebral/brain traits whose creative faculties are responsible for the historic cultures. The earliest creations are languages and gods. Then: Agriculture, Urbanization, and Metallurgy. The latest or most advanced, since the 17th century, are the sciences of the physical world and the electricity technologies and artifacts........
|
|
|
Post by joustos on May 20, 2021 21:06:57 GMT
I listed three stages of historcal development or what Vico calls modifications of the human mind, which brings about the developments, but I forgot to add some developments [cultural facts] that are necessary preconditions of modern science, especially philosophy, the field of inquiries between Theology(with the gods as explanatory causes of world events and phenomena) and Science. I mean Philo-sophia, not Sophia, the wisdom that some people or older persons develop spontaneously in the course of their lives. Unfortunately not all peoples go through the same course of history. There is no uniformity in world history, but there are cultural diffusions and "borrowings" (rather than CLASHES) that make up for natural deficiencies.
|
|
ⲟⲩⲏⲣ ⲡⲁϩⲧⲉ
New Member
Posts: 21
Likes: 6
Meta-Ethnicity: Afro-Asiatic
Ethnicity: Cushitic
Region: Horn of Africa
Location: Africa
Ancestry: Sub-Saharan African
Taxonomy: Ethiopid
Y-DNA: E-M215
Politics: no political affiliation
Religion: Abrahamic
Age: 29
Philosophy: ⲙⲏⲓ
|
Post by ⲟⲩⲏⲣ ⲡⲁϩⲧⲉ on May 25, 2021 9:45:11 GMT
Sorry I'm new, but just out of curiosity how is the white race(which I assume by that you mean Anglo-Saxon)the most advanced race, when civilization during the Bronze Age first arose outside of Europe, in Mesopotamia, Africa, and Pakistan? Egypt is the oldest centralized government, state, and monarchy in the world. The Egyptian state consolidated 5,000 years ago, when Narmer, likely a chieftain from Upper Egypt gradually conquered neighboring villages, before progressing to Lower Egypt as depicted on the Narmer palette discovered at Nekhen in the late 1800s. Even modern architectural feats of engineering and design pale-in-comparison to what was accomplished by the Egyptians 5000 years ago. Egypt's agricultural economy generated enough surplus to sustain and grow the countries population, allowing for massive building protects to be undertaken. The "white race" as you put it was not responsible for any of that. I find Indo-European cultures and civilizations fascinating, be it Indo-Aryan, Indo-Iranian, Slavic, Italic, Hellenic, Germanic, Celtic, etc. but I wouldn't say the "white race" is the most advanced. Welcome, ........ can you please transcribe your username into Roman letters? I read it as OU ER PAHTE [omicron, ypsilon, eta, etc.] but I am not well learned in Coptic. I suppose that the above H is already a Romanization of the letter that looks like an inverted S and stands for a rough aspiration, but there is no vowel after it [ as in the Roman "hoc"]. Anyway, how do you translate it?// Reaction to your final paragraph: Ethnically, or Race-wise, what were the people who created the Indo-European cultures or civilizations? For many reasons I have investigated, I suppose they were Whites, that is, Caucasoid, not Mongoloid, Negroid, or other, people, or hybrids thereof. (I do not identify races with nationalities or "continentalities". So, Europe is not the land of the Caucasoids. Africa is not the land of the Negroids. Etc.) A race is a biological breed which comprises exterior traits and cerebral/brain traits whose creative faculties are responsible for the historic cultures. The earliest creations are languages and gods. Then: Agriculture, Urbanization, and Metallurgy. The latest or most advanced, since the 17th century, are the sciences of the physical world and the electricity technologies and artifacts........ Finally have time to respond to this...... you actually transcribed my name perfectly! It simply means "great leopard." The ancient Egyptian word for "strength" is pehti/pehtj. The determinative of strength is the leopard head hieroglyph. It be worth mentioning that in other parts of Africa leopards are often the totem animal of a clan. What bothered me about your post though was claiming "whites" were a god like race, or something to that effect. I'm just curious to know exactly what basing that on?
|
|