# Humanities & Anthropology > History & Civilisations >  Archaeology as a political weapon

## Angela

This is the kind of stuff that drives me bonkers. Yes, Jerusalem is not just the "City of David", but it was the Jewish capital for a long time. 

Just freaking acknowledge that both of you have been there for a long time!

https://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Ar...-weapon-515922

Now genetics is being used for political purposes too. Look at India: it's not just some Indians playing games. It's also the internet Nordicist "steppe enthusiasts" salivating at the thought that people related to them were conquerors. 

The whole thing is nauseating.

----------


## Angela

What is wrong with some of you people? Keep a civil tongue in your head.

Just when I thought all the idiots were gone or chastened.

I have no idea who you are or what your issue is, but not everything is about you.

Watch yourself or you're out of here.

----------


## Ygorcs

> This is the kind of stuff that drives me bonkers. Yes, Jerusalem is not just the "City of David", but it was the Jewish capital for a long time. 
> 
> Just freaking acknowledge that both of you have been there for a long time!
> 
> https://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Ar...-weapon-515922
> 
> Now genetics is being used for political purposes too. Look at India: it's not just some Indians playing games. It's also the internet Nordicist "steppe enthusiasts" salivating at the thought that people related to them were conquerors. 
> 
> The whole thing is nauseating.


What's particularly strange about those Nordicisists is that the vast majority of those I meet are not Russians or Ukrainians from the steppe, but Scandinavians, Germans, Hungarians, even Britons. Well, well, well, aren't they in the very same situation as Indians: their lands were conquered by steppe immigrants/conquerors - who were foreigners -, assimilated and acculturated in a long process of mixing with the natives? What, does everything change just because the percentage of steppe-derived ancestry in them is larger? For me it doesn't change the essence of the historical process. And in fact we can be fairly sure, putting genetics aside for a moment, that Indians have preserved the customs, beliefs and traditions of those conquerors/immigrants much better than their own peoples. So, I don't understand that kind of triumphalist behavior. It's not like the steppe peoples were indigenous to their countries, nor are they unmixed steppe peoples, but a native+foreigner melting pot like so many others.

----------


## davef

Why are they even called indo European when their genetic makeup isn't even from Europe? If a band of Chinese took their place and mixed with the farmer+western hunter gatherer people, would they be considered European? Not that being European matters to me, it's just me finding the label somewhat odd.

----------


## Ygorcs

> Why are they even called indo European when their genetic makeup isn't even from Europe? If a band of Chinese took their place and mixed with the farmer+western hunter gatherer people, would they be considered European? Not that being European matters to me, it's just me finding the label somewhat odd.


Do you mean the steppe pastoralists? I think it's fair to call them "European" in the sense that they lived in Europe - well, the eastern doorsteps from Europe to Central Asia, but still - and derived much of their ancestry (~50%) from a kind of ancestry that had a long previous history in Europe (EHG). In any case, I think the use of the term "European" should essentially be geographic: if a certain people lived within the usually accepeted borders of Europe, they're European, but that does not mean that all European peoples, especially in the past, were one homogeneous group. EEF were European, just like WHG or EHG, but that does not mean they shared much more than with outsiders. After all, Europe is, strictly speaking, nothing but the northwestern part of Eurasia, without some, but no actually insurmountable barrier. Europe, like the Middle East, was a pretty heterogeneous place until the Iron Age at least. Europe as more than a geographic concept, as some kind of common cultural community is a quite recent phenomenon, actually more related to Graeco-Roman influence and especially Christendom than to anything else.

----------


## davef

Thanks and you know what? I often like to keep things simple and say we're all African. Humanity started in Africa, not in Eurasia or anywhere else. I also believe that the true Europeans are the (non human) animal and plant species that originated there. Crazy as it sounds, this makes more sense to me.

----------


## bicicleur

> Thanks and you know what? I often like to keep things simple and say we're all African. Humanity started in Africa, not in Eurasia or anywhere else. I also believe that the true Europeans are the (non human) animal and plant species that originated there. Crazy as it sounds, this makes more sense to me.


even that is not sure any more
in his book, David Reich himself presents an alternative theory that modern humans some 300 ka started as backmigration of archaic humans from Eurasia to Africa

for myself, the turning point was the onset of the Upper Paleolithic, when modern humans started to outcompete archaïc humans with new tools developped in SW Asia some 50 ka

anyway if everyone would start to claim the lands where his/her forfathers would have roamed, there would be a permanent worldwide war
but there are also many other ideologies claiming superiority, who have nothing to do with ancestry

----------


## Silesian

> What's particularly strange about those Nordicisists is that the vast majority of those I meet are not Russians or Ukrainians from the steppe, but Scandinavians, Germans, Hungarians, even Britons. Well, well, well, aren't they in the very same situation as Indians: their lands were conquered by steppe immigrants/conquerors - who were foreigners -, assimilated and acculturated in a long process of mixing with the natives?..................


I see your flag is Brazil[Portugese speaking -ethnic melting pot and or salad bowl-depending on whom you talk with]. Where did you meet[as in what community-neighborhood in Brazil] and talk to these groups of Nordicists/Russians/Ukrainians/Scandinavians/Germans/Hungarians/Britons/Indians to make an informed opinion ?

----------


## IronSide

We give Nordicists too much attention, who cares ? we dont talk about afro-centrists as often, they hold the same degree of political influence, which is null.

----------


## Ygorcs

> I see your flag is Brazil[Portugese speaking -ethnic melting pot and or salad bowl-depending on whom you talk with]. Where did you meet[as in what community-neighborhood in Brazil] and talk to these groups of Nordicists/Russians/Ukrainians/Scandinavians/Germans/Hungarians/Britons/Indians to make an informed opinion ?


Through the internet as most people here. Oh, and we also have our small but annoying share of racist/Nordicist people who are also usually descendants of Germans or even Italians. They take their references from US and European supremacists groups. It's also a question of pure and simple knowledge about their main pseudo-scientific points, which now rely heavily on the myth of white glorious steppe warriors, and one doesn't need to be a genius to notice that there's something fundamentally illogical in that narrative as they come from (primordially) defeated societies and are in fact descendants not just of conquerors, but also of conquered peoples.

Also, of course the fact I live in a country that is still the result of a recent major admixture event and inter-ethnic mixing makes me very aware of the ludicrousness of trying to set apart from these events that have happened repeatedly throughout history and make wildly crazy fantasies about ethnic/cultural/genetic purity just because some nations' ethnogenesis happened much longer ago and, thus, their mixed and complex origins have long been forgotten.

Aside from that, what I find particularly intriguing is that nobody here questions the legitimacy of some (mainly European or US American) members' opinions and statements based simply on the member's nationality or geographic origin. That's happened 3 or 4 times in less than 1 year since I've started posting in this forum. It's a bit awkward, especially because it's not common, and of course it's also a very weak ad hominem counter-argument. I won't even tell in categorical words what I actually think this subtle difference of treatment indicates about these people...

----------


## Silesian

> Through the internet as most people here. Oh, and we also have our small but annoying share of racist/Nordicist people who are also usually descendants of Germans or even Italians. .........


 That's odd. My son's best man was from Brazil; and they spent some time together in Brazil after sightseeing in Europe-- taking time from university. I also know Italian/Brazilians, and have met Brazilians in a very casual context on the streets where I live. They share a very different version- than what you post. Do you live in a predominantly European and or gated or heavily guarded community in Brazil ?

----------


## davef

> That's odd. My son's best man was from Brazil; and they spent some time together in Brazil after sightseeing in Europe-- taking time from university. I also know Italian/Brazilians, and have met Brazilians in a very casual context on the streets where I live. They share a very different version- than what you post. Do you live in a predominantly European and or gated or heavily guarded community in Brazil ?


he met them through the internet

----------


## Silesian

> he met them through the internet


 Yes that is true.
Here is a question for you. Many places in North America and South America used to have indigenous people living in harmony with the land.
United Nations had a vote for indigenous people. 
https://www.un.org/development/desa/...s-peoples.html

If ancient remains of such people were found in a place like Philedelphia and other places; would it be alright to allow them to move back to there traditional native lands and live in harmony with nature once again like their ancestors?

----------


## Ygorcs

> That's odd. My son's best man was from Brazil; and they spent some time together in Brazil after sightseeing in Europe-- taking time from university. I also know Italian/Brazilians, and have met Brazilians in a very casual context on the streets where I live. They share a very different version- than what you post. Do you live in a predominantly European and or gated or heavily guarded community in Brazil ?


Fortunately not (I mean on the "gated or heavily guarded community", not the "predominantly European" part, lol). But I know they exist. What did they tell you? That racists do not exist here? If it's something along these lines, it's a myth, a well protected myth because racists in Brazil tend to be very low profile, and not very vocal as in other places. As I said, they're in fact a tiny but annoying minority of people, mainly concentrated in the South of Brazil and São Paulo, which are simultaneously the wealthiest (and thus there is as always those who think that the poorer, less white populations must be inherently inferior and are a "burden to the nation") and the most predominantly European parts of Brazil. That's why there are some Nordicist people, they're a pain in the ass, but are actuall very few in numbers.

I fortunately have avoided to have personal and frequent contacts with any of them, but I have met some, especially on the internet, where people usually say what they don't feel they should in public lest they damage their reputation and are seen as weird bigots (in Brazil, at least, that's all too common: most of the awful opinions you find on the internet wouldn't be spoken out and loud face to face, because there's much social emphasis on being kind and agreeable, even if you have to hide what you really think - in that case, I think we're better off without having to listen to those creepy people, indeed). In any case, you're much more likely to find the real racists of Brazil in online forums than in a casual conversation at the office or school, because they usually avoid being labeled as weirdos or even criminals (outspoken racism is a crime in Brazil).

----------


## Salento

> Yes that is true.
> Here is a question for you. Many places in North America and South America used to have indigenous people living in harmony with the land.
> United Nations had a vote for indigenous people. 
> https://www.un.org/development/desa/...s-peoples.html
> 
> If ancient remains of such people were found in a place like Philedelphia and other places; would it be alright to allow them to move back to there traditional native lands and live in harmony with nature once again like their ancestors?


The Native Americans were NOT living in Harmony with each other before the Arrival of the Europeans.
They too went to war with each other.
Even today there are tribes that claim the same land stating that was their’s and that they lost it to another tribe. 

“... According to Keeley, among the indigenous peoples of the Americas, only 13% did not engage in wars with their neighbors at least once per year. ...”

“ ... For example, at Crow Creek in South Dakota, archaeologists found a mass grave containing the remains of more than 500 men, women, and children who had been slaughtered, scalped, and mutilated during an attack on their village a century and a half before Columbus's arrival (ca. 1325 AD). ... ”


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Before_Civilization

----------


## LABERIA

> he met them through the internet


Or in vacation in Europe.
Have you ever been to Europe? I suggest you Greece, beautiful country.

----------


## halfalp

The thing is, i believe we should let everybody express their passions. If you push aside someone because of his beliefs or convictions, you gonna create somebody who gonna give a damn about the others. In that case, i don't really like to think in good or bad, people needs symbolism, some gonna worship some ancient celts matter, others some ancient greek matter, others some confucianist matter, religious of all kind matter etc. If you force somebody to think in a certain way, you gonna make more harm than nothing else, people have to put their ego and their sense of rightness beside when they want to think in humanity as a whole. If a Swedish guy wants to worship ancient vikings culture and nordic mythology and that he sees both as an ideal, he should have the right to do so. I've learn in my life that, the perfect coherent society dont exist, and if it exist one day, it gonna be a totalitarian one, like a lot of dystopic works already mentioned it. If you want to have a good life, you need to stuck with your own beliefs and not try to constantly challenge them with other people ideas. I always say to myself " can i convince him or can he convince me " if the answer is yes, well fine, if it's no, well it doesn't matter to try. Now the problem is, passions can makes you very crazy, when something goes totally in contradiction with it, your mind cant follow and cant change of perspective easily. Personnally, political and social matters can make me thunderous and goes completely crazy, but just imagine if i was ostracize in those beliefs, cornered, without any other issues than end it all up ? This is actually what happens a lot of times with other peoples. They cant handle it and the anxiety coming from can push people to do bad things. So this is why i think everybody should have the right to express their feelings and best, found a good people related to those bad passions and discuss with him about it, he could give you a new perspective that could change a little bit your passions.

----------


## Angela

> Through the internet as most people here. Oh, and we also have our small but annoying share of racist/Nordicist people who are also usually descendants of Germans or even Italians. They take their references from US and European supremacists groups. It's also a question of pure and simple knowledge about their main pseudo-scientific points, which now rely heavily on the myth of white glorious steppe warriors, and one doesn't need to be a genius to notice that there's something fundamentally illogical in that narrative as they come from (primordially) defeated societies and are in fact descendants not just of conquerors, but also of conquered peoples.
> 
> Also, of course the fact I live in a country that is still the result of a recent major admixture event and inter-ethnic mixing makes me very aware of the ludicrousness of trying to set apart from these events that have happened repeatedly throughout history and make wildly crazy fantasies about ethnic/cultural/genetic purity just because some nations' ethnogenesis happened much longer ago and, thus, their mixed and complex origins have long been forgotten.
> 
> Aside from that, what I find particularly intriguing is that nobody here questions the legitimacy of some (mainly European or US American) members' opinions and statements based simply on the member's nationality or geographic origin. That's happened 3 or 4 times in less than 1 year since I've started posting in this forum. It's a bit awkward, especially because it's not common, and of course it's also a very weak ad hominem counter-argument. I won't even tell in categorical words what I actually think this subtle difference of treatment indicates about these people...


Ygorcs, it's not just you. I can't even remember the number of times people have said or implied that I hold a certain position because I'm Italian. 

It's as if it's inconceivable that when discussing an intellectual matter I'm incapable of being objective. The implication is also, of course, that the person accusing me of that is himself perfectly objective. Sometimes I do get annoyed, especially because so much of my training and work experience has revolved around doing everything possible to remove my personal feelings and values from a situation and looking rigidly only at verifiable proof and logic. 

However, I've learned to let things like that slide or I'd be permanently in a rage. That kind of thing is the last resort of someone who can't counter your arguments. 

Fwiw, I think the implication was that you spout what people like this would call "liberal" attitudes towards poorer, non-white Brazilians from the safety of an all European gated community. The latter, if true, would invalidate anything you might say.

----------


## davef

Halfalp, if the Swedish guy wants to worship old Norse gods and get in touch with his heritage, I'm completely fine with that and in fact i find it awesome. He would create problems if he goes around bragging about how much better people in the Nordic league are in comparison to others. If he wants to feel that way, he should at least keep those feelings to himself :).

----------


## halfalp

> Halfalp, if the Swedish guy wants to worship old Norse gods and get in touch with his heritage, I'm completely fine with that and in fact i find it awesome. *He would create problems if he goes around bragging about how much better people in the Nordic league are in comparison to others.* If he wants to feel that way, he should at least keep those feelings to himself :).


I understand that point, the thing is, i dont believe those people actually mean what they say in that matter. It's like a guy says " hey you ! i'm better than you, **** you " nobody like that. Ok there might be some ***** who genuinely think that their ethnic are naturally better than the others, but that aside, what's worry me is that for exemple, people who wants their country or culture to be in a certain way, an historical way, if those people are judge to be supremacists or racists, i found it problematic. And that last part meet my previous post, if somebody feel the need to express how he sees is environnement, how he feel things, what he like, dont like... he should have the right to do so. I have to say, the only supremacists that i ever read on the internet, are the afro-centrists one, i never see any nordic supremacists etc. For exemple, i dont think german neonazis are supremacists whatsoever, they are " supremacists " in the way that they dont recognize modern immigration, new foreign cultural traits etc, but they are not willing to conquer the world and replaced everybody with germans. And this is my problem, people are so fast to ostracize others, like we do with conservatives or muslims, but actually not really to understand their point.

----------


## halfalp

When i read my previous post, i understand how much i struggle to express myself in english.

----------


## Salento

imo We are tribal by Nature, and when we are away from our land of origin we seek each other. We are comfortable around people that we can relate to, and with things in common.
In the USA there are Clubs for every Denomination, Country, even Towns.
Besides 1 or 2 members ( Every Club has a couple of Idiots) we don’t have, or display Feeling of Superiority, and the same apply to the other Clubs. 
Italians, Greeks, Polish, ....., and others, are Proud of their own Heritage, and just because are members of an Ethnic Organization, they should not be confused as followers of Extremist Ideology.
That said, most of us are also Proud Americans, and we Melt with everybody else in our daily life.

----------


## Silesian

> Fortunately not (I mean on the "gated or heavily guarded community", not the "predominantly European" part, lol). But I know they exist. What did they tell you? That racists do not exist here? If it's something along these lines, it's a myth, a well protected myth because racists in Brazil tend to be very low profile, and not very vocal as in other places. As I said, they're in fact a tiny but annoying minority of people, mainly concentrated in the South of Brazil and São Paulo, which are simultaneously the wealthiest (and thus there is as always those who think that the poorer, less white populations must be inherently inferior and are a "burden to the nation") and the most predominantly European parts of Brazil. That's why there are some Nordicist people, they're a pain in the ass, but are actuall very few in numbers........................................... .................... (outspoken racism is a crime in Brazil).


 People often say one thing, however in private will have a completely different stance/view. Have you ever known for any forum moderator to admit they made a mistake banning someone? Have you ever known a politician to have gone in front of all the people that put their trust in their governance to have admitted a mistake [in their judgement that caused harm to the very same people/families]Have you ever known a politician to have put their own personal welfare and security below those who have put their trust in them? Have you ever known bureaucrats to not go against an elected leader/politician- with a mandate to eliminate corruption and crime to go away peacefully without a fight? 
I had a nice conversation with a gentleman from Guyana who schooled me and taught me many valuable ideas without having to visit Guyana. He had visited a city in Brazil and made a decision within the first three weeks that Brazil was not for him. Since I had exchanged ideas on many occasions with other Brazilians, about what made them move away; his reasoning/logic[Guyanese] was the same/similar.

Many people cherish-highly prize= safety[low-non-existent rates murder/rape/violence to women/children/pets- in general to their loved ones and the community they live in] and free environment where their assets are[protected] not robbed by criminal's, through bribery corruption; or through taxation of career politicians and or career bureaucrats.

----------


## Angela

> imo We are tribal by Nature, and when we are away from our land of origin we seek each other. We are comfortable around people that we can relate to, and with things in common.
> In the USA there are Clubs for every Denomination, Country, even Towns.
> Besides 1 or 2 members ( Every Club has a couple of Idiots) we don’t have, or display Feeling of Superiority, and the same apply to the other Clubs. 
> Italians, Greeks, Polish, ....., and others, are Proud of their own Heritage, and just because are members of an Ethnic Organization, they should not be confused as followers of Extremist Ideology.
> That said, most of us are also Proud Americans, and we Melt with everybody else in our daily life.


I think that's absolutely correct. 

That's why I'm so appalled sometimes at the attitudes one ethnic group holds about another even here on the site.

I'll give an example from Europe but not an issue that's ever been raised here. 

I was just watching a show about someone born and bred in Northern Ireland and related to "The Troubles". It explains how the Protestant "Orange Lodges" created to celebrate the role of the Prince of Orange in the defeat of the "native" Catholic Irish would until quite recently deliberately march through Catholic neighborhoods. Obviously it was to rub their noses in that centuries old defeat, but it also highlighted to the Catholics, of course, how they were discriminated against in housing, but more importantly, in jobs.

Why the hell would you do that? Why is it necessary? 

Why can't you just be proud of who you are without trying to constantly show how you're better than someone else.I don't know, maybe it's human nature for some people, but it's not a trait I share, and it's very destructive.

----------


## Ygorcs

> People often say one thing, however in private will have a completely different stance/view. Have you ever known for any forum moderator to admit they made a mistake banning someone? Have you ever known a politician to have gone in front of all the people that put their trust in their governance to have admitted a mistake [in their judgement that caused harm to the very same people/families]Have you ever known a politician to have put their own personal welfare and security below those who have put their trust in them? Have you ever known bureaucrats to not go against an elected leader/politician- with a mandate to eliminate corruption and crime to go away peacefully without a fight? 
> I had a nice conversation with a gentleman from Guyana who schooled me and taught me many valuable ideas without having to visit Guyana. He had visited a city in Brazil and made a decision within the first three weeks that Brazil was not for him. Since I had exchanged ideas on many occasions with other Brazilians, about what made them move away; his reasoning/logic[Guyanese] was the same/similar.
> 
> Many people cherish-highly prize= safety[low-non-existent rates murder/rape/violence to women/children/pets- in general to their loved ones and the community they live in] and free environment where their assets are[protected] not robbed by criminal's, through bribery corruption; or through taxation of career politicians and or career bureaucrats.


Yes, yes, okay, but so what? Your rant sounds confused. That has absolutely nothing to do with the topic nor even with the off-topic subject we are discussing here. Nobody - certainly not I - is stuck in a childish, petty international competition. I'm well past that. Also, I am an individual using the nickname Ygorcs, not the personification of a 210 million populous country called Brazil. So, honestly, the content of your post sounds pretty useless and meaningless to me at least for this moment, so I'll refrain from commenting any further. It just seems you want to make some point about an entire nationality or people, and I don't even have any will to know what it actually is. I suspect it's nothing really relevant nor good. So, case closed.

Now go back to the topic and cease your ad hominem ramblings, okay? You've said even mora than you should've. You've now been warned. Bye!

----------


## Ygorcs

> Ygorcs, it's not just you. I can't even remember the number of times people have said or implied that I hold a certain position because I'm Italian. 
> 
> It's as if it's inconceivable that when discussing an intellectual matter I'm incapable of being objective. The implication is also, of course, that the person accusing me of that is himself perfectly objective. Sometimes I do get annoyed, especially because so much of my training and work experience has revolved around doing everything possible to remove my personal feelings and values from a situation and looking rigidly only at verifiable proof and logic. 
> 
> However, I've learned to let things like that slide or I'd be permanently in a rage. That kind of thing is the last resort of someone who can't counter your arguments. 
> 
> Fwiw, I think the implication was that you spout what people like this would call "liberal" attitudes towards poorer, non-white Brazilians from the safety of an all European gated community. The latter, if true, would invalidate anything you might say.


Yes, Angela, I have seen that kind of attitude towards you once here. I think these people are making their impressions and judgements on people like us based on their own (subpar) standards of objectivity, reasonability and scientific interest (not one that is more and more obviously guided by a personal or collective agenda that wants to use the past as a mere tool to make a point in present political/ideological controversies). 

So, it's kind of understandable, they can't even conceive the possibility that someone is well more mature, rational and simply dispassionate/disinteresed about historical and more broadly any scientific issues than themselves. Poor guys. As for those assumptions that you correctly interpreted, they are so absurdly simplistic and out of touch with my own reality and the reality of Brazil that I can only pity the lack of knowledge about the world.

Fortunately I have no issue accepting the positive and hideous aspects of the demographic/genetic history of my country and of the entire world. It is what it is, and there is no reason to be either proud or ashamed of things we, as individuals, have nothing to do with centuries or milennia ago, if not for anything else at least because by the present time we descend from so many different people and cultures that it's ridiculous to feel like you "own" or "belong to" to one specific ancestral source among so many others. 

I'm perfectly reconciled with all those complex processes that led to us all, living people, and if anything I, having unquestionable European, African and Amerindian roots, with recent ancestry derived from - basically - conquerors+slaves+defeated nations, feel I can be more neutral than many supposedly "pure" people here or elsewhere. All of those ancestries matter, not just the sometimes glorified winners. It's kind of funny how childishly some people get triggered by the passing comment on how ludicrous it is to boast about being descended of so-called steppe conquerors while neglecting the huge chunk of their own ancestry that comes directly from the local defeated societies.

----------


## Jovialis

> Yes, Angela, I have seen that kind of attitude towards you once here. I think these people are making their impressions and judgements on people like us based on their own (subpar) standards of objectivity, reasonability and scientific interest (not one that is more and more obviously guided by a personal or collective agenda that wants to use the past as a mere tool to make a point in present political/ideological controversies). 
> 
> So, it's kind of understandable, they can't even conceive the possibility that someone is well more mature, rational and simply dispassionate/disinteresed about historical and more broadly any scientific issues than themselves. Poor guys. As for those assumptions that you correctly interpreted, they are so absurdly simplistic and out of touch with my own reality and the reality of Brazil that I can only pity the lack of knowledge about the world.
> 
> Fortunately I have no issue accepting the positive and hideous aspects of the demographic/genetic history of my country and of the entire world. It is what it is, and there is no reason to be either proud or ashamed of things we, as individuals, have nothing to do with centuries or milennia ago, if not for anything else at least because by the present time we descend from so many different people and cultures that it's ridiculous to feel like you "own" or "belong to" to one specific ancestral source among so many others. 
> 
> I'm perfectly reconciled with all those complex processes that led to us all, living people, and if anything I, having unquestionable European, African and Amerindian roots, with recent ancestry derived from - basically - conquerors+slaves+defeated nations, feel I can be more neutral than many supposedly "pure" people here or elsewhere. All of those ancestries matter, not just the sometimes glorified winners. It's kind of funny how childishly some people get triggered by the passing comment on how ludicrous it is to boast about being descended of so-called steppe conquerors while neglecting the huge chunk of their own ancestry that comes directly from the local defeated societies.


I think it's fine to be proud of your ancestry, and culture, just as long as it isn't used to justify superiority, hate, or genocide. I'm proud to be Italian, I'm interested in learning about my history, and culture. But I also have a big appreciation for learning about other cultures as well.

----------


## Ygorcs

> I think it's fine to be proud of your ancestry, and culture, just as long as it isn't used to justify superiority, hate, or genocide. I'm proud to be Italian, I'm interested in learning about my history, and culture. But I also have a big appreciation for learning about other cultures as well.


Yes, but that legitimate pride should not become a dangerously unrealistic, essentialist and biased (why do only some people - the winners mostly - matter, and not the cultural/genetic contributions of others, especially the "losers"?) myth. We see that in something like projecting one's modern ethnicity to thousands of years ago, as if the people and its context were essentially always the same, primordial and "pure", and there was an immediate, unmixed, line linking them with people living in 2018. 

Nor should that pride interfere with one's evaluations of genetic, archaeological or whatever evidence about the history of one's country/culture/people. When you let your appreciation for this or that culture, or your modern attachment to this or that ethnic group lead you to accept or reject this or that theory/hypothesis, then it's clear your scientific interest has been unredeemably tainted with confirmation bias and too much subjectivity. 

Just like you, I love my nation, I love being Brazilian, but that will never blind me to the complex and often convoluted and harsh realities of our historic formation as a people/country. The good and the bad aspects are all part of who we became and are now. And even if they were not, they're still the truth regardless of how useful or useless, positive or negative they may be to living people right now.

It's fine to be interested in one's people's ethnicity, but forgive me if I must say I'm deeply suspicious of anyone who not only appreciates it, but instead glorifies and fetishizes it as some kind of untouchable thing that must only have positive and heroic origins. Since this position is obviously out of touch with reality, one's opinions on matters of history and culture will become totally skewed and simplistic, tending to favor this or that for mere "convenience", even when it doesn't fit the available evidences.

----------


## Jovialis

> Yes, but that legitimate pride should not become a dangerously unrealistic and essentialist myth (something like projecting one's modern ethnicity to thousands of years ago, as if the people and its context were essentially always the same, primordial and "pure"). Nor should it interfere with one's evaluations of genetic, archaeological or whatever evidence about the history of one's country/culture/people. When you let your appreciation for this or that culture, or your modern attachment to this or that ethnic group lead you to accept or reject this or that theory/hypothesis, then it's clear your scientific interest has been unredeemably tainted with confirmation bias and too much subjectivity. 
> 
> It's fine to be interested in one's people's ethnicity, but forgive me if I must say I'm deeply suspicious of anyone who not only appreciates it, but instead glorifies and fetishizes it as some kind of untouchable thing that must only have positive and heroic origins. Since this position is obviously out of touch with reality, one's opinions on matters of history and culture will become totally skewed and simplistic, tending to favor this or that for mere "convenience", even when it doesn't fit the available evidences.


I agree that biased evaluation of scientific data should not be taken seriously. Nevertheless, as long as they don't exhibit violent/thugish or radical tendencies, I don't feel suspicious of people that are very proud of their country imo.

----------


## Ygorcs

> I agree that biased evaluation of scientific data should not be taken seriously. Nevertheless, as far as suspicion of people that are very proud of their country, as long as they don't exhibit violent/thugish or radical tendencies, they're fine imo.


Oh, yes, if they aren't racist nor ethnocentric, they're fine, but, well, I can't help not taking them very seriously if what they do is really glorify and idolize their origins too much, because I'm afraid that, when you not just appreciate your past, but turn it into a "dogma" that is an essential part of your self-esteem/sense of pride, then it may be very difficult to be unbiased and objective, especially when the narrative the evidences point out is not exactly heroic nor puts their ancestors in a positive light.

----------


## Jovialis

> Oh, yes, if they aren't racist nor ethnocentric, they're fine, but, well, I can't help not taking them very seriously if what they do is really glorify and idolize their origins too much, because I'm afraid that, when you not just appreciate your past, but turn it into a "dogma" that is an essential part of your self-esteem/sense of pride, then it may be very difficult to be unbiased and objective, especially when the narrative the evidences point out is not exactly heroic nor puts their ancestors in a positive light.


I think that if someone's proud of their ethnicity, it would essentially be part of their sense of pride; I think it is natural for people to feel this way. Nevertheless, if that get's in the way of interpreting the facts, than it would make them an unreliable person. However, I think it is very apparent if they try to deny claims that have been accepted by the majority of the scientific community, that have been settled. People can be proud of who they are, and love their country, culture, people and history; but they need to accept the facts. When they deny the facts, or try to prove an untenable narrative, it is most apparent they are agenda driven.

----------


## firetown

> I think it's fine to be proud of your ancestry,


In terms of which part of one's ancestry exactly? The man-made part regarding a nationality? Or the genetic part? And how exactly are you proud of something you've had no influence over? Pride in own accomplishments I can see. But simply based on birth?

----------


## Jovialis

> In terms of which part of one's ancestry exactly? The man-made part regarding a nationality? Or the genetic part? And how exactly are you proud of something you've had no influence over? Pride in own accomplishments I can see. But simply based on birth?


Which part exactly? All of it that makes who I am, and my family. I had said in another thread, an ethnicity, is broadly defined as gradients of certain genetic admixtures, and a shared culture. I get what you're saying, but it is a fact, that many people feel a strong connection to groups they belong to.

----------


## Salento

> In terms of which part of one's ancestry exactly? The man-made part regarding a nationality? Or the genetic part? And how exactly are you proud of something you've had no influence over? Pride in own accomplishments I can see. But simply based on birth?


Obviously you are Experiencing an Identity Crisis.
I’ve Diagnosed your “Condition” by your questions.

----------


## LABERIA

> Yes, Angela, I have seen that kind of attitude towards you once here. I think these people are making their impressions and judgements on people like us based on their own (subpar) standards of objectivity, reasonability and scientific interest (not one that is more and more obviously guided by a personal or collective agenda that wants to use the past as a mere tool to make a point in present political/ideological controversies). 
> 
> So, it's kind of understandable, they can't even conceive the possibility that someone is well more mature, rational and simply dispassionate/disinteresed about historical and more broadly any scientific issues than themselves. Poor guys. As for those assumptions that you correctly interpreted, they are so absurdly simplistic and out of touch with my own reality and the reality of Brazil that I can only pity the lack of knowledge about the world.
> 
> Fortunately I have no issue accepting the positive and hideous aspects of the demographic/genetic history of my country and of the entire world. It is what it is, and there is no reason to be either proud or ashamed of things we, as individuals, have nothing to do with centuries or milennia ago, if not for anything else at least because by the present time we descend from so many different people and cultures that it's ridiculous to feel like you "own" or "belong to" to one specific ancestral source among so many others. 
> 
> I'm perfectly reconciled with all those complex processes that led to us all, living people, and if anything I, having unquestionable European, African and Amerindian roots, with recent ancestry derived from - basically - conquerors+slaves+defeated nations, feel I can be more neutral than many supposedly "pure" people here or elsewhere. All of those ancestries matter, not just the sometimes glorified winners. It's kind of funny how childishly some people get triggered by the passing comment on how ludicrous it is to boast about being descended of so-called steppe conquerors while neglecting the huge chunk of their own ancestry that comes directly from the local defeated societies.


From your words it seems that being a moderator in this forum is a difficult job, i dare even to say dangerous. I'm curious, are you paid to do this job, or are you just volunteers?

----------


## Ygorcs

> From your words it seems that being a moderator in this forum is a difficult job, i dare even to say dangerous. I'm curious, are you paid to do this job, or are you just volunteers?


No, it's been actually very easy. I don't take these controversies on genetics/ethnicity/history as seriously and personally as some other members seem to. My self-esteem definitely does not depend on this or that topic of genetics and history. lol! I just accept what the evidences indicate as most probable, I myself have nothing to gain or to lose because of what hypothetical ancestors of mine did or did not do many centuries ago. I am proud of where I came from (not just, conveniently, some part of my ancestry, but all of it, including the "non prestigious" ones), but I know those people were very imperfect like us and had sometimes shockingly different values and practices. That's what life was.

Besides, I honestly don't think criticism or questioning are anything more than a thing to be expected or, at the worst case, an annoyance. Actually to be fair in this particular topic I don't think there has been anything directed against me just because I'm a moderator. What's a bit disturbing, of course, is that in fact I notice the criticism is more about who I am and where I come from, nor about what I do and what I say. So don't worry, man, I'm totally cool. lol!
Oh, and no, of course (and unfortunately lol) we are not paid, and in my specific case I didn't exactly "volunteer", I just accepted an invitation, that was all.

Now let's go back to the topic, which is actually very intriguing.

----------


## markozd

> Obviously you are Experiencing an Identity Crisis.
> I’ve Diagnosed your “Condition” by your questions.


Some people simply don't care. I certainly don't.

I'd abrogate my national and ethnic allegiances in a heartbeat if I could afford nice apartment in downtown Buenos Aires or something  :Embarassed:

----------


## Salento

> Some people simply don't care. I certainly don't.
> 
> I'd abrogate my national and ethnic allegiances in a heartbeat if I could afford nice apartment in downtown Buenos Aires or something


If that’s a requirement to play the system to get ahead in life, I’m not going to cast a judgement on that.
Somebody that doesn’t care about a topic, doesn’t usually engage in a thread.
Anybody that feel the need to respond, imo They do Care.
If they didn’t, they wouldn’t bother stating their opinions.

----------


## Jovialis

> Some people simply don't care. I certainly don't.
> 
> I'd abrogate my national and ethnic allegiances in a heartbeat if I could afford nice apartment in downtown Buenos Aires or something


My family moved to the United States, yet they still had an attachment to their ethnic origins, and continued to celebrate their traditions; so I don’t believe those things are mutually exclusive. 

In terms of my nationality, I’m also proud to be an American.

----------


## firetown

> doesn’t *usually* engage in a thread.


Completely agreed. But when you are searching for certain information and all you see is nationalistic topics on that subject, maybe... just maybe... you decide to make a comment just to either
a) help you understand that mindset (should a reasonable answer come along)
or
b) maybe make people understand how ridiculous (IMO) they are to pollute a forum designed for genetic research with insignificant opinions regarding man-made phenomena.

I have always viewed nationalism as a weakness. The need to be a part of something bigger without really having direct impact. We all have our weaknesses. But thankfully that is one I do not have. Thanks for your analysis. Am I free to assume you are not a professional in that area?

----------


## Salento

> Completely agreed. But when you are searching for certain information and all you see is nationalistic topics on that subject, maybe... just maybe... you decide to make a comment just to either
> a) help you understand that mindset (should a reasonable answer come along)
> or
> b) maybe make people understand how ridiculous (IMO) they are to pollute a forum designed for genetic research with insignificant opinions regarding man-made phenomena.
> 
> I have always viewed nationalism as a weakness. The need to be a part of something bigger without really having direct impact. We all have our weaknesses. But thankfully that is one I do not have. Thanks for your analysis. Am I free to assume you are not a professional in that area?


It’s basic Common sense, a Fancy Degree is not Needed to recognize when somebody is urging for a confrontation instigating a response.
I’m done with this.

----------


## Angela

There is absolutely nothing wrong with being proud of the achievements of one's ancestors, and being attached to the language, culture, and way of life they produced. I'm damn proud of my people, whose strength and resilience in the face of unimaginable hardship is the reason I'm here and breathing, and those people's genes are in my body and help to make me who I am. I guess you're not proud of the hard work and dedication of your parents either, or of your children? You didn't do it, after all.

The only problem arises when that sense of identity, that pride, morphs into a belief not only that your "group" is superior to others, but that this gives you the right to oppress or demean other groups and treat them as "less" human.

This sense of pride need not even derive from membership in a group through blood. I'm damn proud of my adoptive country as well. Does it do everything right? Obviously not. All things created by man are flawed. (Sometimes, Catholic theology is still helpful.) I swell with pride when I read the founding documents of this country, the Declaration of Independence, the writings of Washington, the Federalist papers, the speeches of Abraham Lincoln. Were they perfect men? No, they weren't. Did they deal correctly with slavery? No, they didn't, and the country had to pay the price by fighting a bloody war to settle it. The fact remains that these are milestones in human political development, and anyone should be proud to belong to the group which created them and tries to live up to them. Heck, I'm proud of the work of the various charities I belong to, and not just for the work done under my aegis, but for good work going back decades. 

I find this virtue signaling about being part of this post-modern, I'm a citizen of the world, and not some right wing, nationalist extremely unattractive. Some people think being proud of one's country means you disparage others and find that verboten, but have no difficulty disparaging people who are proud of their nationality. If some of you don't feel any attachment to being American, for example, how about you renounce your citizenship and go elsewhere? See if you like it better somewhere else. I had to swear to defend this country and its founding documents to become a citizen. Maybe native born citizens should be required to do the same to renew their citizenship. Imo, this is just more of the I want all the benefits but none of the responsibility attitude that is so pervasive in this post modern world. (I feel the same way about Italian citizenship, btw. All this bunk about it's enough to have some measure of Italian blood is ridiculous. You swear to defend it, or forget about getting the benefits of citizenship.)

As for being a moderator, to my knowledge no one volunteers. One is asked. No one is paid. 

Ygorcs is a moderator for a few weeks. He apparently doesn't know yet that it's not necessarily a bed of roses. I've been called every conceivable, vile, pornographic name in the book, a few times in the public section but mostly by pm, by various racist, lunatics drawn to this "hobby", sometimes American, often Balkan or Eastern European. I've been threatened with physical harm, but not to the extent that another moderator had to endure. A certain "member" found this moderator's name and address and threatened him in his home, and also threatened some major event. One nut job had to be referred to the FBI. Our identities are now more shielded.

So, no, not always fun. 
I'm also sure that Ygorcs doesn't mean to imply that he doesn't take being a moderator seriously.

Now, enough of this, and back to the topic.

@Firetown,
Looking down on people whom you assume aren't as educated as you are, Firetown? Very unattractive. I thought everyone was supposed to be equal and treated with respect? Or does that only apply to people with whom you agree?

If you're going to play that game, do you want to question my degrees or intellect? 

Do not ridicule other members again. Am I clear?

----------


## firetown

> It’s basic Common sense, a Fancy Degree is not Needed to recognize when somebody is urging for a confrontation instigating a response.
> I’m done with this.


Good. I was done way before you until you instigated a response. And thank you for the negative rep on my reply.

----------


## firetown

> @Firetown,
> Looking down on people whom you assume aren't as educated as you are, Firetown? Very unattractive. I thought everyone was supposed to be equal and treated with respect? Or does that only apply to people with whom you agree?
> 
> If you're going to play that game, do you want to question my degrees or intellect? 
> 
> Do not ridicule other members again. Am I clear?


Am I clear about what exactly?

----------


## Salento

> Good. I was done way before you until you instigated a response. And thank you for the negative rep on my reply.


I don’t remember down voting your post. Probably. Don’t Assume.
People detected Contempt in the way you wrote.
You were also ridiculing the response related to “What a Sense of Belonging Means to Them”! 
So be it.
We’ve been warned already to stay on topic.
Forget about it.

----------


## CrazyDonkey

> Thanks and you know what? I often like to keep things simple and say we're all African. Humanity started in Africa, not in Eurasia or anywhere else. I also believe that the true Europeans are the (non human) animal and plant species that originated there. Crazy as it sounds, this makes more sense to me.


"Indo-European" simply means that members of the language (_not_ racial) family spread to India, in the east, and to Europe in the west, that Sanskrit and English, for instance, are kindred languages.

----------


## firetown

> I don’t remember down voting your post. Probably. Don’t Assume.


Sorry about that, but someone keeps downvoting my post daily. All is well. I hope that people here understand this is a research based forum. Not an opinion based one.

----------


## firetown

> "Indo-European" simply means that members of the language (_not_ racial) family spread to India, in the east, and to Europe in the west, that Sanskrit and English, for instance, are kindred languages.


That is a very simplistic way to put it. Language has something to do with it. But language gets altered. y-DNA and mtDNA pass along differently and more scientifically. As do blood type frequencies.

*Added: Sorry again for taking a goof as a serious inquiry. 
*

----------


## firetown

And moderators should not complain about not getting paid. Even though they deleted their posts. If they accept the position, don't complain to regular posters about it, Angela. I have kept the screenshot of what you have posted previously.

----------


## firetown

> If you're going to play that game, do you want to question my degrees or intellect?


I do. You never read or examine actual studies. But you fight opinions on what you didn't even examine. Formed based on whatever your mind pre-conceives. Am I clear?

----------


## Jovialis

> I do. You never read or examine actual studies. But you fight opinions on what you didn't even examine. Formed based on whatever your mind pre-conceives. Am I clear?


You better get back on topic, and stop provoking moderators, or I will give you another infraction.

----------


## firetown

> You better get back on topic, and stop provoking moderators, or I will give you another infraction.


I was on topic. Until you people threatened to use powers Maciamo once gave you. Don't use that language against me. NO matter how protected you feel here.

----------


## Jovialis

> I was on topic. Until you people threatened to use powers Maciamo once gave you. Don't use that language against me. NO matter how protected you feel here.


If you continue to be disruptive, and harassing, I will have to give you another infraction appropriate for the offense.

----------


## firetown

Attachment 10080
learn from your own history. when enough is enough.

----------


## Jovialis

> Attachment 10080
> learn from your own history. when enough is enough.


You have accumulated enough infraction points for a ban. I have given you fair warning.

----------


## Ygorcs

Stop it right now, or you will rightly receive another infraction. Moderators have been patient, indulgent and even willing to compromise in this topic, so don't play the victim card. You're making no solid argument nor adding anything to the discussion, not even to this off-topic matter. So, I'm pretty sure you will lose nothing if you just cease to post empty ad hominem comments. You've already been warned, you're now just repeating the criticisms you already posted, so what else do you want? To have the last word and get out of this quarrel produly? Okay, then we'll just end this right now and pretend that you had the last word. Case closed. Now back to the topic.

----------


## Alcuin

> What's particularly strange about those Nordicisists is that the vast majority of those I meet are not Russians or Ukrainians from the steppe, but Scandinavians, Germans, Hungarians, *even Britons*


I've never met a Nordicist in my life, other than those speaking/acting ironically.

Scandinavians also seem pretty normal in that regard.

I find that it's mostly people from states like Latvia and Estonia, perhaps because a) they come from countries which are historically fairly irrelevant, and b) their own culture/history has been distorted or destroyed by years of Communist rule

----------


## Ygorcs

> I've never met a Nordicist in my life, other than those speaking/acting ironically.
> 
> Scandinavians also seem pretty normal in that regard.
> 
> I find that it's mostly people from states like Latvia and Estonia, perhaps because a) they come from countries which are historically fairly irrelevant, and b) their own culture/history has been distorted or destroyed by years of Communist rule


I can't say I have met them personally, but I've seen their comments and "ideas" in forums and comment boards of videos. However, what you say may be true, especially because it seems to me that the traumatic communist experience also meant that such countries didn't have to make much of an "inner social reflection" about those outdated ideologies related to 19th century-style nationalism, ethnic chauvinism or even downright racism. They were preoccupied with a whole new, revolutionary ideology, and didn't go through the same social/cultural dynamics, questionings and eventually a new moral/cultural synthesis that happened in the "West". However, I'll be honest and say that, in fact, it seems to me that, in proportional terms, the largest number of staunch "nordicisists" (which is actually mostly just a disguise for white supremacism in this case, something much more racial than ethnic/cultural), probably comes from North America.

----------


## Angela

^^There are also numerous people of Eastern European extraction, i.e. Russia, Poland, even if they actually come from places as far afield as Australia. We also once had a large contingent of Iberian stormfronters infecting this site, and you get some Italians as well. 

I think both Ygorcs and Alcuin's explanations are right on.

----------


## Johane Derite

Archeology is definitely political. In the intro to Arthur Evans' book "Illyria" its mentioned that there are photographs he took of some roman inscriptions in Kosova that Serbia later destroyed once it got power. Arthur Evans for those who dont know is the
discoverer of Knossos:

----------


## MOESAN

archeology is not political in itself, except maybe some states or high schools policiy for archeology - individuals, even among the scientists, can have political biases; the most biased being not the scientists as a whole, but people who re-interpret scientific conclusions, and politicians evidently -

----------


## Johane Derite

> archeology is not political in itself, except maybe some states or high schools policiy for archeology - individuals, even among the scientists, can have political biases; the most biased being not the scientists as a whole, but people who re-interpret scientific conclusions, and politicians evidently -


Archeology is not political itself, yet it must be done within history, not in an abstract realm removed from it. 

Which ever territory exists inside of history is controlled by actors that engage in their politics, i.e. nation states. 

In the 99' war of Kosovo, Serbian military took 1248 artefacts from museums around Kosovo. They systematically looted
museums for any artefacts dating from all the way back to Vinca culture to late ottoman empire. In their collection are things like
tradition Albanian cradles with symbolic engravings, etc. 

This is just what we know about and in 99. God only knows in the last hundred years what they took, and the Turks in the 500 years before that.

*LINK:* http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/blog...res-12-19-2017

----------


## Johane Derite

This is just *1* artefact that was stolen in 99. It's now in Belgrade museum. It is originally from Glammnik, 5km's from my
fathers village. It is a mosaic of Orpheus from Roman times, before slavs were in South East Europe.




What is also politically interesting is religious politics. Mosques and Churches build their structures 
either anew or ontop of older sites. 

This Dardanian stele with a Labyrinth was found in the foundation of some small inconsequential 
mosque in Kosovo when undergoing renovations:





It is of utmost importance that every church and mosque be examined for older artefacts that may lay underneath, 
otherwise a political advantage over the past is held by religious interests, as opposed to the interests of universal truth.

----------


## Alcuin

> I can't say I have met them personally, but I've seen their comments and "ideas" in forums and comment boards of videos. However, what you say may be true, especially because it seems to me that the traumatic communist experience also meant that such countries didn't have to make much of an "inner social reflection" about those outdated ideologies related to 19th century-style nationalism, ethnic chauvinism or even downright racism. They were preoccupied with a whole new, revolutionary ideology, and didn't go through the same social/cultural dynamics, questionings and eventually a new moral/cultural synthesis that happened in the "West". However, I'll be honest and say that, in fact, it seems to me that, in proportional terms, the largest number of staunch "nordicisists" (which is actually mostly just a disguise for white supremacism in this case, something much more racial than ethnic/cultural), probably comes from North America


Well I'd take online comments with a pinch of salt. Some people take the cyberworld too seriously, and others recognise that it's often easier to get a rise out of somebody by saying something on a forum or video than it would be in a real-world pub or workplace.

As I said, I've never encountered a person who could be called Nordicist in my personal life. By no means would I consider myself a 'liberal' or 'left-wing' person, if modern interpretations of those words are the barometer. However, I do recognise that wanton bigotry against the unsuspecting is an unattractive trait in a person. What I see in my own country is a generation (or generations) of people who are totally removed from their history and culture, and if they are taught it in schools or encounter it in the form of television or print media, it is rarely presented in a positive light. It's not hard to see why people who have been robbed of their heritage in the name of heinous, if well-intentioned, political/ideological goals might be seduced by fringe ideologies that place _them_ at the very core.

The notion of 'whiteness' as an important form of self-identification seems very much an American one. Myself and the other Britons/Europeans I know might consider ourselves Londoners or Cornishmen, Englishmen or Scotsmen or Britons, Europeans or Westerners. But 'white' doesn't come into it at all, perhaps because to Europeans truly multiracial (as opposed to multinational or multi-ethnic) societies are very much a recent phenomena in comparison to the USA.

----------


## Angela

^^Fwiw I think you're both right. 

As to talk about "whiteness" it is an American usage whose definition changed over time. William Penn, an Englishman who did much to settle Pennsylvania, was at times hesitant to let in the Germans of the Palatine area because he thought they were swarthy and not "white" enough.

In later centuries, Lebanese Americans went to court to be categorized as "white". So did some Portuguese and Armenians if I remember correctly.

The thing was not to be classified as "colored, because you had fewer civil rights in that case. Even being part Amer-Indian was preferable. Many Americans who had stories of having a Native American ancestor, which was supposed to explain their "darker" looks, found out through genetic testing that they actually had part black ancestors.

There's sometimes even today a disconnect in how Americans see someone and how that person sees himself, and for Americans it's not about being strictly "European". When pictures of the young Boston Bomber went viral, who is Chechen, the reaction was...but he's "white". Some idiot young teenage girls even formed fan clubs, if you can believe it, because they thought he was "hot". He didn't "feel" white, though. Razib Khan has also commented that in Texas, I think, Sikhs sometimes have derogatory slurs hurled at them for being Arab terrorists, whereas Lebanese or Syrians are left alone. 



I guess it's understandable. Nobody in the real world looked at Steve Jobs or at Ralph Nader and thought they're not white.





It's still mad, though.

----------


## A. Papadimitriou

There is nothing rational about the concept of whiteness in US. Benjamin Franklin called Germans and Swedes 'swarthy'.

I know that Greeks weren't considered 'white' in the US before WW2.

In cinemas they had to sit with the 'non-whites'. They weren't accepted even in worker unions, so they had to make worker unions with Turks and Albanians.

The racist groups also targeted Jews and Catholics, of course.

----------


## Alcuin

> There is nothing rational about the concept of whiteness in US. Benjamin Franklin called Germans and Swedes 'swarthy'.
> 
> I know that Greeks weren't considered 'white' in the US before WW2.
> 
> In cinemas they had to sit with the 'non-whites'. They weren't accepted even in worker unions, so they had to make worker unions with Turks and Albanians.
> 
> The racist groups also targeted Jews and Catholics, of course


You're probably a reptilian.

----------


## Northener

Archeology is especially misused in and before ww2. People like Ernst Sprockhoff and Gustav Schwantes were prominent archeologist and convinced Nazis. 
Partly due to that kind of political misuse we got since ww2 and especially since the sixties a pure orientation on pottery (in stead of people and migration).
Genetics make clear that there was more than pottery and cultural influences but also migration.
I guess some suppose that this could mean that the ghost is again out of the bottle....especially when you are interested in the (North Sea) Germanic culture like me....
But I guess the crossover between archeology, genetics, language sciences etc can be done sincerely without 'supremacy' thoughts.

----------


## Angela

> Archeology is especially misused in and before ww2. People like Ernst Sprockhoff and Gustav Schwantes were prominent archeologist and convinced Nazis. 
> Partly due to that kind of political misuse we got since ww2 and especially since the sixties a pure orientation on pottery (in stead of people and migration).
> Genetics make clear that there was more than pottery and cultural influences but also migration.
> I guess some suppose that this could mean that the ghost is again out of the bottle....especially when you are interested in the (North Sea) Germanic culture like me....
> But I guess the crossover between archeology, genetics, language sciences etc can be done sincerely without 'supremacy' thoughts.


I indeed believe that, and you seem to be one of those people.

Good summary on the swings in archaeology too.

----------

