Who were the people the Romans conquered?
What was their religion, languages, culture?
Did they survive the Roman empire?
Islamophobia, xenophobia and anti-semitism In the west
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
Who were the people the Romans conquered?
What was their religion, languages, culture?
Did they survive the Roman empire?
um the ENGLISH????
celtic was there cuture, and religion. Yes there religion survived until the middle ages (and some still practice a bastadised form of it today) when henry 8 made the church of england
and there language is one of the biggest in the world
So is french by the way and i belive THEY were concered by the romans
the spanish were to i belive and there language is fine
the germans? same again
celtic was there cuture, and religion. Yes there religion survived until the middle ages (and some still practice a bastadised form of it today) when henry 8 made the church of england
and there language is one of the biggest in the world
So is french by the way and i belive THEY were concered by the romans
the spanish were to i belive and there language is fine
the germans? same again
You mean these languages are not from the Latin?
The Romans were there from around 500 BC to around 27 AD
At that time the English were speaking English, the French were speaking French?
I dont see your point, the middle ages was a time of LOTS of invasions but the english were speaking celtic before then. Language assimilation is part and parsal of invasion so there are latin words there are french words there are german words and there are celtic words all in english
Why do you think its one of the hardest languages to learn?
i still dont see your point
Why do you think its one of the hardest languages to learn?
i still dont see your point
The Mongols wiped out several indigenous languages, and the results of their conquests in places like Iran resembled the consequences of later European conquest in other places. They brought holocaust, to many. And famine, plague, etc.SAM said:
Would you say the English did not add to the culture of India ? Railroads, say? In a couple hundred years, will the added wealth and so forth of introduced English technology not swamp the records of initial impoverishment ? Thus it was, with the Mongols - one of the few comparable empires.
In general, I think you underestimate the effects of disease and economics, and overestimate the effects of xenophobia.
The Western conquests are recent, and the technology (especially of language use) much changed. Time will tell, if the descendents of the Dutch and Portuguese in the colonial Indonesian Islands are still speaking Dutch and Portuguese in three hundred years. I notice few Swedish speakers in the territories conquered by Gustavus Adolphus. No one in Europe speaks Latin.
The major languages in places like Peru and Ecuador include Spanish, but only as one among others. English is more common than German, in China, and only via America, which never conquered the place.
Challenger78
Valued Senior Member
Xenophobia is still rampant. Compared to Asian countries, Australia has way more politicians making xenophobic comments.
Challenger78
Valued Senior Member
A mayor who hasn't lost his job made such comments.
See
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=76021
I had to go through 3 sites to find out who he was because your link was just to a huge debate. The only thing i could find on him was that he had been striped of the right to perform citizanship ceromonies which is just about all a mayor does so not a HUGE problem. If you have to go down to local goverment to find a racist we are doing a fairly good job. No idea where you are from but here local goverment only deals with things like trash collection. If he was a state or federal polition i would be more concerned
Instead of simply going blah blah blah with anti-western propaganda, why don't you try to go to Japan?
I am not sure that the Rus would agree with you there.
The Koreans were called sub-humans by the Japanese, and they didn't have enough time to really do any major damage to either nation.
I'm not so sure that the central asians would agree with you, as the Persians were pretty harsh on what is today Tajikistan and parts of Afghanistan.
Compare it with the Chinese or the Fillipino.
To suggest that Anglo culture hasn't incorporated the various elements that it has taken over is a very ignorant thing to say.
How do you explain Tejano/Tex-Mex culture and Cali-Mex?
How do you explain the Cajuns?
w1z4rd
Valued Senior Member
There's an english idiom for this "the pot calling the kettle black". Troll away though, put your culture above others, and pretend your fart doesnt stink. Lame ++
Bah, when I think things are bad with old racists in South Africa... I just come here, and read your racist posts Sam. Reminds me that no matter how bad things are here... were getting over people like you. (By people like you.. I refer to people that think they are better because of X.Y.Z... basically the same character mindset you would find in the US KKK). Opposite ends of the same coin.
Using racism to fight racism is like fucking for virginity.
Last edited:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Australia+xenophobic+nation
http://www.indianexpress.com/res/web/pIe/ie/daily/19980710/19150344.html
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Mayor+Davis+Australia
http://www.aijac.org.au/review/1996/2118/davis.html
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Australia+xenophobic+nation+davis
http://elecpress.monash.edu.au/pnp/free/pnpv7n3/v7n3_2money.pdf
I dunno, it is just too hard to figure what you are talking about. I just can't seem to understand where I'd ever find information on the issue that you were talking about. Obviously, there is nothing talking about the situation out there on google for people who aren't lazy fuckers to learn more about what was going on in that thread you linked to...
S.A.M:
What bullshit generalisations. Are you serious, or are you just trolling for an indignant response?
But perhaps you are right. Rhodesia, the bread basket of Africa, is a myth. Once Rhodesia/Zimbabwe declared it's independence, the bread-basket of Africa did not suffer from widespread poverty, did not suffer from widespread corruption, did not suffer huge economic setbacks, did not suffer political turmoil, and did not suffer degeneration in the (once good) education standards of the natives.
And if such things did occur, whitey and the West are at fault. They are at fault for abandoning (ie. granting independence) to Zimbabwe, or for invading in the first place and turning the country into the bread basket... oh, wait.
What bullshit generalisations. Are you serious, or are you just trolling for an indignant response?
But perhaps you are right. Rhodesia, the bread basket of Africa, is a myth. Once Rhodesia/Zimbabwe declared it's independence, the bread-basket of Africa did not suffer from widespread poverty, did not suffer from widespread corruption, did not suffer huge economic setbacks, did not suffer political turmoil, and did not suffer degeneration in the (once good) education standards of the natives.
And if such things did occur, whitey and the West are at fault. They are at fault for abandoning (ie. granting independence) to Zimbabwe, or for invading in the first place and turning the country into the bread basket... oh, wait.
liberal guilt at work
lolz
lolz
I don't know why people cannot get this point.
Did the Mongols follow a policy of wiping out indigenous tradition? Re-education camps that suppressed indigenous language and customs? No because in any country that was ruled by Mongols, there was no change in indigenous culture.
This is the first I have heard of Mongols wiping out any languages? Which is especially interesting to me as they held sway in India for almost 800 years and we still have our 200 languages and gawd knows how many dialects as intact as the people available to use them. So what languages were these and how were they wiped out?
The Western technology in India was useful, but what happened to Indian culture? The deliberate divide and rule policy created religious schisms and led to the partition of the country, differential treatment of the Brahmins consolidated the class system and the creation of an umbrella HInduism, diminished many valuable philosophies. The Indologists and historical contributions of the British that determined policy in India were highly detrimental to the social fabric of the country - just a casual glance at their work will show how they sought to undermine the social structure and value systems. To make a rich thriving country, a poor starving nation in 200 years.
I would say the Persians were pretty much the ones who may have lost out on part of their culture as the 700 years of war they were fighting had diminished their resistance when the Arabs came in. Despite that, Farsi is still alive and the Persian identity as separate from the Arabs and Ottomans is also intact. Moreover the Persians are still running their own country.
This is also true of Koreans and Afghanis (at least until the NATO stepped in).
Now compare that with Cajun culture.
South Africa is another example of a Western civilisation stepping in and taking over the indigenous people and resources and subverting them while refusing to assimilate or contribute. Also an example of a people becoming the second class citizens in their own country.
There you go.
S.A.M:
More like, did they survive their barbarian neighbours (such as the Goths), and rival empires (such as the Ottoman's) once the Roman Empire fell? Romans almost always allowed conquered peoples to retain their local laws and religious beliefs. There are notable exceptions to the rule, such as Judea and the Carthaganians, who were essentially wiped out or expelled. But that's what you get for continually stirring the pot, even after Rome offers to allow your to practice your local laws and religion, as long as you 'Render unto Caesar...'.
And it's not as if the Persians didn't beat up on the Jews. Also note that Jewish culture in India is virtually non-existant. Acting as though Eastern empires were multicultural utopias, whereas Western empires unanimously enforced the 'Conform or die' policy, is just racist stereotyping.
More like, did they survive their barbarian neighbours (such as the Goths), and rival empires (such as the Ottoman's) once the Roman Empire fell? Romans almost always allowed conquered peoples to retain their local laws and religious beliefs. There are notable exceptions to the rule, such as Judea and the Carthaganians, who were essentially wiped out or expelled. But that's what you get for continually stirring the pot, even after Rome offers to allow your to practice your local laws and religion, as long as you 'Render unto Caesar...'.
And it's not as if the Persians didn't beat up on the Jews. Also note that Jewish culture in India is virtually non-existant. Acting as though Eastern empires were multicultural utopias, whereas Western empires unanimously enforced the 'Conform or die' policy, is just racist stereotyping.
What is the status of Aborigines in Australia. You don't have to go further than that to see xenophobia.