Printable View
No they didn't. They were likely Celtic looking. Most were probably light brown hair, some had red hair, some had blond, some had black. Different tribes looked different. For example, Scythians were lighter than Persians.Quote:
referred to a people who looked vastly different.
But they were "white".
Am i white?I have green eyes and blond hair but we Finns arent Indo-Europeans,Nor Mongols.We are Finno-Ugrig.
Cool.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Don't ask me, ask the geniuses that invented the 'white race' to begin with. Oh wait, you can't. They're all dead. I never said it made sense. In fact, my point is that the 'white race' makes no sense. And neither does the black race, PJ. I don't believe in race, and I refuse to check any box (or I put down that I'm Inuit).Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Why not believe in race? It's a social thing like 'male'. Doesn't mean anything other then it's something you look like. If we were to be that concerned with profiling then why allow sex to be invloved at all. We are all persons aren't we? ~:)
I want to know since when are ignorant klansmen in the US experts on race, going out and preaching that Greeks aren't white? If anything we are superior to any other race because of the things we have acomplished, if we were to be that arrogant. Not that I'm saying that of course. ~D
About Iranians, they are not really white. I don't know exactly how to describe their colour but they darker not in a brown way but a black(real black) shading, typically of course, there's always the odd one or two people. To say otherwise is as intelligent as the nazi's clueless propaganda.
About Turks, I'm not sure if they are white or not, because they are so mixed that they have practically become one of the people's of Asia minor, I'm not sure if they can be classified as European, since the greeks always considered what is today Turkey(most of it) to be Asian domain.
And no having blue eyes and blond does not mean you are somehow more pure in being white. Swedish have black hair, brown eyes a little less then Greeks let's say, but the swedes live closer to the poll where that trait would gain more dominance. It's just a genetical trait. It's actually very similar to the trait of the Kodiak bear. It's usually black but every once in a while it comes out completely white. This is not because it mixed with other types of bears, but because it's predesposed by nature to change color randomly in generations.
I'm talking not about today's Iranians, but people like the Persians, Parthians, Scythians, Sakae, Dahae, Sarmatians etc.Quote:
About Iranians, they are not really white. I don't know exactly how to describe their colour but they darker not in a brown way but a black(real black) shading, typically of course, there's always the odd one or two people. To say otherwise is as intelligent as the nazi's clueless propaganda.
They wouldn't be European. But not European does not equal not white. As I said, Iranians were white (Persians, etc.) They were not European however.Quote:
About Turks, I'm not sure if they are white or not, because they are so mixed that they have practically become one of the people's of Asia minor, I'm not sure if they can be classified as European, since the greeks always considered what is today Turkey(most of it) to be Asian domain.
No Tribesman, North Africans and Middle Eastern people are usually arab, not white. You really dont understand race do you? Im sure I can find a website that delineates the races, would that help you?
Yes you really could find a web site that delinates the races,but you could also find a web-site that shows that humans are really from the planet Theta.
Besides which you said "Caucasian" describe that word ......Look in a dictionary . :book:
So since I assume that you cannot make any claim apart from pigmentation of the skin , then you must judge people by the colour of their skin , if you judge people by the colour of their skin then what is the word to describe that ?
You really are clever with words and missleading people. Youve made it an art. The only thing we judge people by the color of their skin for is the color of their skin. Its come to the point where if someone asks you to describe that man over there and you say well hes black for starts your a racist.Its come to wear soon the police wont be able to ask you what color the perpetrator of a crime was because you will call him a racist.Quote:
So since I assume that you cannot make any claim apart from pigmentation of the skin , then you must judge people by the colour of their skin , if you judge people by the colour of their skin then what is the word to describe that ?
Dogs are all one species but there are many breeds. Humans are no different.
Tribesman,
Youre being a bit thickheaded on this one.. thats ok, ill be patient.
You used a very interesting word in your last post:
You'll have to show me where I said I judge anybody by the color of their skin.Quote:
So since I assume that you cannot make any claim apart from pigmentation of the skin , then you must judge people by the colour of their skin , if you judge people by the colour of their skin then what is the word to describe that ?
I am simply trying to point out to you that race is a perfectly viable distinguishing characteristic.
Race is information that governments, demographers, and a number of other groups use to characterize populations.
Are you saying that world governments are inherently racist for recognizing that there are different races of people?
(Personally I think your on a ultra politically correct bender, but thats just me. ~;) )
I am simply trying to point out to you that race is a perfectly viable distinguishing characteristic.
Fine , then show me the disytinguishing Charachtereistic that defines a White Christian .
North Africans and Middle Eastern people are usually arab, not white.
You defined white as caucasian ~:confused:
White and christian are too differnt means of classification.Quote:
Fine , then show me the disytinguishing Charachtereistic that defines a White Christian.
Sure caucasian isnt really the name for the white "breed", but it is used as such by general society.Quote:
You defined white as caucasian
White people are genrally considered anybody of european descent. The execption for this would be hispanics as the also have a lot of indian/black blood mixed around, thus they aren't really white, though people from spain are.
There is no other term for white people other than white, though it means much more than there skin color.
Wow, from a problem with Berlin birth rates to how to define people, and the description of their color and race. Wow, can someone show the progressive timeline for this?
Guys, repeat after me. There is no such thing as the 'white race'. It was invented by a bunch of guys who considered 'white to mean WASP (white anglo-saxon protestant).
Just because our government is racist and categorizes people according to the color of our skin doesn't make it right or mean we should. This is the way to end affirmative action...quit this stupid artificial distinction.
'He's the all american bullet headed saxon mother's son'
(from: The Continuing Story of Bungalow Bill, White Album, 1968)
~D ~D ~D ~D ~D ~D ~D ~D ~D ~D
Trust in Don. Categorizing people is stupid!
:egypt: :indian_brave: :cowboy: :karate: :mickey: :afro: :klingon: :sultan: :sombrero: :santa2: :vulcan:
~D ~D ~D
etter tell that to all governments and news agencies . But this really would be a good idea as thats the only way Democrats get any votes is by pointing out minorities and panderig to them. Oh thats right there is no suchthing as minorites and at least we can throw out all that stupid hate crime legislation.Quote:
Trust in Don. Categorizing people is stupid!
Give the man a prize, he finally gets it!!! Race always leads to racism. The way to end racism is to end race distinction (as, when you come down to it, we're all in the human race, no?) Ending race means ending racial quotas, it means ending race based initiatives, it means ending the politics of division, it also means the end of the klan, the end of preferential mortgage lending and I think, it leads to a healing process we desparately need. Rather than talking about African-American or white America, we should be talking about, surprise "AMERICA". (Insert country of choice for America as seen fit).
Being white, and being Christian.Quote:
Fine , then show me the disytinguishing Charachtereistic that defines a White Christian .
If you dont understand what being white is - talk to a demographer.
If you dont understand what being Christian is - talk to a priest.
~:rolleyes:Quote:
Just because our government is racist and categorizes people according to the color of our skin doesn't make it right or mean we should.
Don't roll your eyes at me! ~D
Seriously, do you agree with the University of Michigan Law School admissions policy? Do you agree with quotas? Do you agree with affirmative action? Aren't all of these forms of racism?
I agree totally with you Don on this one.Culture is something worth preserving.Race is just an way for putting people in too little boxes.As i mentioned before.I could say that Indoeuropean people ar not white because their language witch is originally from India is originally asian.Only original European people that still exists are Basks and Finno-Ugrig peoples.And i woud never make that kind of statement because to me its just plain stupid. :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
I think we all pretty much agree on this. I doubt many here are racists. But its human nature to put people and things into little boxes and categorize them. Its a noble thought but is it realistic? We can only hope. In a perfect world it would certainly be so.Quote:
I agree totally with you Don on this one.Culture is something worth preserving.Race is just an way for putting people in too little boxes
I dont believe in racism, but i do believe that race is an existent distinguishing characteristic. The color of skin is not the only difference between the races. Bone structure(especially facial structure), genetics, susceptibility to certain illness, hair, and a few other things define the races.Quote:
Seriously, do you agree with the University of Michigan Law School admissions policy? Do you agree with quotas? Do you agree with affirmative action? Aren't all of these forms of racism?
There is no conflict between recognizing the differences between the races and believing people should not be judged on those differences.
As I said earlier, i work with demographics a lot, and understanding the different races of a particular area really helps in your general understanding of an area.
Is it racist to want to know if the ancient egyptians were black, arab, or even white? Of course not, it just helps in understanding their origins.
Egyptians wouldn't have been black...
But Cleopatra would have been white, the Ptolomies (the rulers of Egypt after Alex took over) were all Greeks. Oh wait, that was a hypothetical example... my bad. :embarassed:
Um, I think Don hit it right on the head. But I don't think we are all equal yet, so it would be a bit hard to forget about race when there are still many racists. But ideally, we wouldn't have to worry about it.
The only reason I can possibly see for distinguishing people's race is for medical reasons. Some diseases follow chromosonal patterns and favor one ancestral group, such as sickle-cell anemia. Other than that, what earthly reason do we have for tracking somebody's genetic origins?
Who really cares whether the pharoahs were sub-saharan africans, semitic, arabic, or a race that has died out/been absorbed? The cultural meta-group of 'ancient Egyptians' exists regardless of whether they were darker than me, lighter than me, their hair was curly or straight.
Well for example, if you are making a game or movie or something that includes them, and you want them too look correct... ~;)
Historians for one.Quote:
Who really cares whether the pharoahs were sub-saharan africans, semitic, arabic, or a race that has died out/been absorbed? The cultural meta-group of 'ancient Egyptians' exists regardless of whether they were darker than me, lighter than me, their hair was curly or straight.
If as Merc says the general concensus is that they were black, that goes a long way to help understand where they originated from.
If we were to somehow find that many of them were white(not just the greek leaders), that would completely change things.
Well, if you want to go around keeping checklists on people, you're going to have to come up with a more accurate tool than 'race'. The whole concept of 'race' assumes categories that are definable. How would you define somebody who's father is Kenyan and who's mother is Swedish? I know, you'd define them as black, but why? Because they're not white, even though 50% of their genetic material is. ~:confused:
As far as Steppe's movie, one's race should not be a qualifier as to their acting ability. Would you argue that white people should not be allowed to play the title role in Othello?
And historians are hopefully smart enough to temper their discussions with the idea that when two groups come into contact, they mix. If you went to Sicily and looked around, you'd define them to be their own racial group. But they're not. They're polyglots of Greeks, Latins (true Latins), Arabs, Moors, Normans and whoever else has moved in there over the past 2000 years. How would defining a 'sicilian race', because it doesn't quite look like any other, help historians? There's much better ways of tracing origin then eyeballing somebody and saying 'yep, white' or 'nope, black'.
I said they weren't black, probably... ~;)
But I don't know what the Ancient Egyptians race was really called. But the drawings of them on their tombs and the excavated mummies don't point to African features, though certaintly some of the population probably was.
But yeah, it matters to historians. For example, as someone who cares about history (though I don't know that much about it), I am quite angry that Hannibal is going to be black in a movie. To potray him properly, we need to know what he would have been like (or roughly).
Why would you care that Hannibal is played by a black actor? He was a Carthaginian, which certainly wasn't white. Carthage was settled by the Phoenecians, and whether they were of Sumerian or Semitic background is unclear. What is clear is that Achilles definitely DID NOT look like Brad Pitt (assuming he actually lived). Where was your outrage then?
That child would be mixed.Quote:
Well, if you want to go around keeping checklists on people, you're going to have to come up with a more accurate tool than 'race'. The whole concept of 'race' assumes categories that are definable. How would you define somebody who's father is Kenyan and who's mother is Swedish? I know, you'd define them as black, but why? Because they're not white, even though 50% of their genetic material is.
Shakespearian plays are not historical movies. The way the actors present themselves are very different than in a movie that is supposed to depict an actual event or time in history.Quote:
As far as Steppe's movie, one's race should not be a qualifier as to their acting ability. Would you argue that white people should not be allowed to play the title role in Othello?
Would you find a movie about the civil war where Robert E. Lee was played by a black actor historically acceptable? Would it be credible?
What about a movie about medieval Europe that had an asian man playing the king of England. You wouldnt have a problem with that?
Its not realistic to pretend to be color blind.
Carthage was a Pheonecian colony. Where did you get Sumerian, lol. I didn't know Iraqi's lived that far away. :dizzy2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
Oh and Phoenicians are indeed of Semitic breed, so even if Hanibal didn't look as white as a Swedish guy, he would certainly be as white as a Lebanese person, which is pretty close to a greek person.
Why not? ~:confused:Quote:
What is clear is that Achilles definitely DID NOT look like Brad Pitt (assuming he actually lived). Where was your outrage then?
In the Iliad he is described as having fair hair and being attractive and strong. That's pretty close to Brad Pitt, although what greeks meant by fair hair was probably less blond then Brad, it's still pretty accurate.
The point is that we are all 'mixed' and are all continuing to mix. Genetic traits have concentrated in certain areas for political and geographical reasons over the last 100,000 years - but these are just traits, suseptable to being overwritten in the next generation by either a dominant gene pushing the trait to the background or by mutations.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
No-one can look at your dna and say 'Swedish' or 'Angolan'. They can say 'probably north European' or 'likely to be west african'.
(Troy was a horrible movie.)
Uhm, Phonecia existed in what's now modern day Lebanon & Syria. The Sumerians (as a race, not a government) existed across Mespotomia including: the Babylonians, the Assyrians and the Chaldeans. Last I heard, nobody knew if the Phoenicians were of the Sumerian racial group or the Semitic racial group. And he most certainly would NOT be as white as a modern day Lebanese person, as the Lebanese have had deposits of French genetic material for centuries. But thank you for proving my point. It's a VERY, VERY, VERY tangled thing to try to extrapolate race back more than 2 or 3 generations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince
Sumerians stopeed existing more then 1500 years before Hanibal. And they were taken over completely by Semitic cities of southern Iraq. And you know what they did to people back when they took a city. I have never read, not in my Encyclopedia, not anywhere that Phoenicians are Sumerian, which is not a race btw. The reason people know that pheonician are semitic is that their language is similar to judean and arabic. Sumerian language was wiped out, what does that say about their populations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
The Sumerian civilization itself died out in 1500BC, yes, but everything I've ever read has the Sumerians, the Babylonians, the Chaldeans & the Assyrians all belonging to the same meta- cultural/language group, which is decidedly NON semitic. And Phoenecia was aroung a LONG, LONG time before Hannibal my friend. I'm no saying I know for a fact that Hannibal had the same chromosonal makeup as Hammurabi or Nimrod, I'm just saying it's a possiblity, and as possible that he shared chromosonal traits with the Jews & other Semites of his day.
And I didn't know Phonecian was classified as a semitic language. Now that I do, I would agree with you, they probably weren't from the same group as their next door neighbors, the Assyrians (who were from the same language/racial group as their forebears, the Sumerians).
Can you tall me that the aboriginies arent a easily recognised race? The fact that the races have now intermingled doesnt change things.So now were all mutts instead of pure breds thats all. Its not that there are no races but that the world has grown smaller and the lines are beggining to blur. This is a good thing however.
I have to state this.I think the Brazilian women are most beatiful on the face of the earth and you dont get more mixed people in the world. :sweetheart:
I was outraged at Brad Pitt's horrible performance and how stupid he looked. The whole movie was very inaccurate.Quote:
Why would you care that Hannibal is played by a black actor? He was a Carthaginian, which certainly wasn't white. Carthage was settled by the Phoenecians, and whether they were of Sumerian or Semitic background is unclear. What is clear is that Achilles definitely DID NOT look like Brad Pitt (assuming he actually lived). Where was your outrage then?
And I don't know what Hannibal looked like, but it wouldn't be black. That is why trying to figure out the different races is important, so we can try and see what he looked like.
BP, there probably was Sumerian blood mixed in, since no country back then totally destroyed every conquered city. It's far too much work to repopulate an entire city, besides, it would probably lead to more mixing due to the captured wives and rapes. So they wouldn't just die out when their countries fell.
Oh man are you ever wrong. ~:eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
In the 3rd millennium bc, Semitic nomads conquered the region and made their inflected tongue, which was closely related to Babylonian, the prevailing language of the land. The Assyrian script was a slightly modified version of the Babylonian cuneiform.
Babylonians, Assyrians, and Phoenicians were all Semites my friend. I have encyclopedic knowledge of this subject.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
Sem·ite
Sem·ite [sé mt]
(plural Sem·ites)
n
1. member of Semitic-speaking people: a member of any of several Semitic-speaking peoples of the Middle East, including the Arab and Jewish peoples, and the ancient Assyrians, Babylonians, Carthaginians, Ethiopians, and Phoenicians
I stand corrected. Either one too many happy hours stands between me and the time that I read my ancient middle eastern history, or I didn't understand what I was reading at the time. Thank you for the enlightenment, and when time allows, I will revisit the matter. However, none of this is relevant to what we were discussing... that the White race is dying out (or should there even be such a thing).
Doesnt anyone else like Brazililian women.Or is just good old vodka taking over. ~:cheers:
I think Brazilian women ARE beautiful. But I don't have a 'type'. I like all women, they just have to be beautiful for their type. ~:eek: ~:eek: ~:eek: Erh, I mean, yes dear, you're the only woman that catches my eye... ~:eek: ~:eek: ~:eek: now put that gun down and have some chocolate.
The one thing I like about Brazilian women is it appears to be a cultural thing that in Brazil, women's derrieres are given a lot of prominence, and Brazilian women seem more than happy to show them off. This is, of course, a very good thing. ~:cheers: ~:cheers: ~:cheers:
Watch out for mrs Corleone with those statements. ~;) I either have no type.Hell i like all women. :kiss2: I just thought it would benefit the thread by showing that races suck. ~:cheers: