Europe's demographic crisis

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?

---

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.

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... ~;)

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.

---

Historians for one.

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?

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.

---

That child would be mixed.

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?

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

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.

---

Carthage was a Pheonecian colony. Where did you get Sumerian, lol. I didn't know Iraqi's lived that far away. :dizzy2:
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.

Quote:

---

What is clear is that Achilles definitely DID NOT look like Brad Pitt (assuming he actually lived). Where was your outrage then?

---

Why not? ~:confused:
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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

That child would be mixed.

---

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.

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.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince

Carthage was a Pheonecian colony. Where did you get Sumerian, lol. I didn't know Iraqi's lived that far away. :dizzy2:
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.

---

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 Don Corleone

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.

---

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.

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:

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?

---

I was outraged at Brad Pitt's horrible performance and how stupid he looked. The whole movie was very inaccurate.
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.

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.

---

Oh man are you ever wrong. ~:eek:

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

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).

---

Babylonians, Assyrians, and Phoenicians were all Semites my friend. I have encyclopedic knowledge of this subject.

Sem·ite

Sem·ite [sé mt]
(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: