The Kalash Tribe of Pakistan

[adren@line]

In the discourse amongst nations, there is no higher arbiter than the sword. Accordingly, I see nothing wrong with "might makes right" when a state of nature exists.

That maybe true, but so is the fact that people eventually die. If we always operated on natural absolutes then we would uncivilized, barbaric, immoral savages. What makes a nation "right" is its innovation in science, technology, its upholding of freedoms, and what entails its "might" is its ability to defend itself. "Might makes right" is simply one group, regardless of how primitive they are, conquering and potentially killing-off another group.

There is no reason for me to take-up arms against anyone right now. So far, my country is still my country. When my country is under attack, I'll take up arms against the invaders. Just as I would hope you would as well.

Sure I would, but if you apply the might-makes-right philosophy across the board, you should be out forcing people to believe what you believe, since it is the highest arbiter. You can sit there and engage in discourse all day, but it probably wont do anything.

Moreover, this nation never included those American Indians. American Indians have always been an extreme minority amongst us. Few have petitioned for citizenship or been accepted into our company as fellow citizens. Most retained an alien status according to their sovereign nations, which have been routinely given legal justification to reside in certain areas which are construed as land belonging to them. Today, several sub-countroes of Indian land live amongst us and I am fine with that. So long as their links remain tenuous to benefits and such.

That is due to the fact that by the time this land actually became a nation, the native Americans had been slaughtered and killed-off. They were and are only an extreme minority due to the savagery of the Europeans. They have sovereign nations due to their historical persecution. If the Europeans hadnt treated them like animals (or worse), they would exist in large numbers.

I am not particularly opposed to ethnic foods,

Then you aren't being consistent.

but retaining an "identity" of "I am not fully American" is absurd. One cannot dispense with one's life experiences and one's background, but one can put "America first" and construe oneself primarily through that identity, which is what I mean by whole dissolution. My immigrant forebears did not say "I am still a German!" or "I am still an Irishman!" or "I am still a Swede!" or "I am still a Frenchman!" they adopted an America first policy.

Sure they did. The Irish were treated like dogs, almost like slaves. They weren't considered American by the ruling majority, and neither were blacks, Mexicans, Chinese, or the natives. The only people who were really considered American were non-Irish, white, land-owning males.

If we accept your belief that cultures and supercultures cannot have infighting, then we would have to speak of a complete absence of civil wars throughout history. It is clear and apparent that ethnic and cultural ties do not prevent wars from erupting. WWI and WWII do not refute a "white superculture" that comes from the Renaissance, when the idea of a European intellectual, artistic, religious, mercantile, and cultural exchange based on common racial and cultural ties. If anything, the fact that the leaders of all countries in WWI were part of the same family affirms this. The kaiser's grandmother was Queen Victoria and the Romanoffs were the cousins of the English crown!

Moreover, from a historic point of view, Europe has three origins: Greco-Romantic peoples, Celtic peoples, and Germanic peoples. All the nations of Europe, excepting those with Turkic admixture from the Ottomans, the Basques, and one or two other isolated indigenous groups, owe their existence to this.

My point is that this is all romanticized and serves no practical purpose. History shows that Europeans don't really care if someone else is white, they will still invade, fight, and kill as if their opponent was non-white. There are of course cultural ties, but ultimately that means nothing when it comes to politics and the major issues.

The Turks aren't white. They are Turkic. They are caucasoids (an antiquated term that is borderline offensive, but whatever). But they aren't "white".

You are confusing Indo-European with white. Indo-European is a lingjuistic and cultural term, white is a racial term. Race is 110% superficial and is based on skull shape, nose size, skin/eye/hair color. There is no substance to it. By these definitions, Turks are white. So are the majority of Jews, who are the descendants of European converts. If a German converts to Judaism, his race does not change overnight.

Turks are far more white than most Indians, who only share some romanticized Indo-European/Aryan linguistic and cultural connection with other Europeans. Otherwise, the vast majority look nothing alike, and race is all about looks and nothing else.

[Fedor Fan 189]

how are they not being murdered left and right by muslims

[swirldog]

Can I join that tribe? Fly back to the US for 11 1/2 months, return and have sex with all the Kalash women I want?

[adren@line]

They arent being murdered because there isnt any benefit in murdering them or forcing them to convert.

[DrSatanDracula]

Adren@line:

That maybe true, but so is the fact that people eventually die. If we always operated on natural absolutes then we would uncivilized, barbaric, immoral savages. What makes a nation "right" is its innovation in science, technology, its upholding of freedoms, and what entails its "might" is its ability to defend itself. "Might makes right" is simply one group, regardless of how primitive they are, conquering and potentially killing-off another group.

By that definition, the white man was as mighty as he was right. For the white man conquered by better technology, instituted governments where true freedom reigned, et cetera.

But that not withstanding, your assertion that we'd live as "immoral savages" is wrong. I do not affirm that one should rule by might makes right inside any nation - only in the discourse between them.

Sure I would, but if you apply the might-makes-right philosophy across the board, you should be out forcing people to believe what you believe, since it is the highest arbiter. You can sit there and engage in discourse all day, but it probably wont do anything.

I have no problem with forcing someone to believe at the point of a sword if it is advantageous for my nation to do so against alien nations.

That is due to the fact that by the time this land actually became a nation, the native Americans had been slaughtered and killed-off. They were and are only an extreme minority due to the savagery of the Europeans. They have sovereign nations due to their historical persecution. If the Europeans hadnt treated them like animals (or worse), they would exist in large numbers.

90 percent of Indian casualities resulted from mere contact with the Europeans and their germs.

Furthermore, the American Indians were hardly "innocent" of savagery. Let us not forget the massacres, the scalping, the raiding, et cetera, which the Indians perpetrated against the white man, in equal dosages as he faced atrocities. It was an even battlefield in this regard wholly.

Sure they did. The Irish were treated like dogs, almost like slaves. They weren't considered American by the ruling majority, and neither were blacks, Mexicans, Chinese, or the natives. The only people who were really considered American were non-Irish, white, land-owning males.

That's pretty historically inaccurate. For one: The majority of early settlers were Scotch-Irish. Secondly, the Irish were quickly accepted into American culture, after intiial reservations of various sort.

My point is that this is all romanticized and serves no practical purpose. History shows that Europeans don't really care if someone else is white, they will still invade, fight, and kill as if their opponent was non-white. There are of course cultural ties, but ultimately that means nothing when it comes to politics and the major issues.

Simply because one will go to war with someone does not mean one does not share supercultural ties.

I am not claiming some big happy "white family". I am merely claiming the obvious point that since the Renaissance (and earlier in the Roman world) there has been an established idea of European (white) civilization and superculture.

You are confusing Indo-European with white. Indo-European is a lingjuistic and cultural term, white is a racial term. Race is 110% superficial and is based on skull shape, nose size, skin/eye/hair color. There is no substance to it. By these definitions, Turks are white. So are the majority of Jews, who are the descendants of European converts. If a German converts to Judaism, his race does not change overnight.

Modern genetic studies have actually shown that Jews are dissimilar to their white neighbours, indicative of a closed off gene pool owing to cultural segregation.

Furthermore, Turkic peoples are indeed racially different. Turkic peoples retain Asiatic skull features, genetics, et cetera. Indo-Europeans have dramatically different features and genetics.

The Turkics have been distinct since at least 6,000 years ago, if not more.

[SnakeEyes]

Originally Posted by DrSatanDracula

Specifically, as a New Yorker, I am culturally Irish-Catholic in many regards.

Hmmm. Yeah, but as an Irish-Catholic American, you're more culturally Pagan than you'd think. Most of our holidays and holiday traditions are Pagan (eating a Ham on Xmas day, Xmas trees, dressing up for Halloween, the cult of the Virgin Mary,etc) and most of our superstitions and folklore are still pagan, too. There has never been a direct and pure adoption of Christianity in Europe; the old ways and beliefs were never completely abolished to begin with, and the actual theology and growth of Christianity post-Palestine/Israel was rooted in myriad waves and layers of Pagan philosophy and culture (first and foremost gnosticism and all the stuff that went into and fed gnosticism, but also revivals of traditions from Mesopotamia and Greece later on). Even the Judaic background of Christianity in Israel was influenced from Pagan beliefs from Phoenicia, Sumeria and Akkadia, and especially Persia (the devil, dichotomy between good and evil).

I had a professor in my first year of college who used to drop the "you're culturally Christian whether you like it or not" line, and it made sense at the time. But 6 years later of digging through Indo-European linguistic and religious information made me understand that the shit we believed 5-6 thousand years ago isn't that far removed from the Europe 2.0 Christianity we attribute to the modern era. That's a big reason why I find neo-paganism to be a bit of a joke; I'd almost consider myself a "neo-pagan" by virtue of what I like and am influenced by (believe?) in my (long-term) cultural heritage, if the term hadn't been appropriated by flaky hippies and amateurs who don't understand anything about History.

[SnakeEyes]

Originally Posted by DrSatanDracula

Modern genetic studies have actually shown that Jews are dissimilar to their white neighbours, indicative of a closed off gene pool owing to cultural segregation.

Furthermore, Turkic peoples are indeed racially different. Turkic peoples retain Asiatic skull features, genetics, et cetera. Indo-Europeans have dramatically different features and genetics.

The Turkics have been distinct since at least 6,000 years ago, if not more.

I have no beef with your argument but you're treading on dangerous ground if you think the Indo-European linguistic affinities and relations are evidence of any kind of ethnic homogeneity. There are more than a few Indo-European speakers who are ethnically different from what we consider "white European" (Dravidian-descended Indians, for one, but look at how every black person in the new world speaks English, French or Spanish languages). The prehistory of the Indo-Europeans is far too confusing and misunderstood for us to be certain of any kind of ethnic core; we're talking about a language family that's been spread from the Tarim Basin in China to the British Isles, and has been the lingua franca for empires in such diverse areas as Anatolia, Africa, Europe, South Asia, Central Asia and the New World.

[DrSatanDracula]

Snakeyes:

Hmmm. Yeah, but as an Irish-Catholic American, you're more culturally Pagan than you'd think. Most of our holidays and holiday traditions are Pagan (eating a Ham on Xmas day, Xmas trees, dressing up for Halloween, the cult of the Virgin Mary,etc) and most of our superstitions and folklore are still pagan, too. There has never been a direct and pure adoption of Christianity in Europe; the old ways and beliefs were never completely abolished to begin with, and the actual theology and growth of Christianity post-Palestine/Israel was rooted in myriad waves and layers of Pagan philosophy and culture (first and foremost gnosticism and all the stuff that went into and fed gnosticism, but also revivals of traditions from Mesopotamia and Greece later on). Even the Judaic background of Christianity in Israel was influenced from Pagan beliefs from Phoenicia, Sumeria and Akkadia, and especially Persia (the devil, dichotomy between good and evil).

You're absolutely correct.

Christianity is a syncreticistic belief system that adapted to the prevailing religious thought of Europe and elsewhere. Specifically in practice, one finds dramatic connections to prior belief systems sprinkled throughout.

I had a professor in my first year of college who used to drop the "you're culturally Christian whether you like it or not" line, and it made sense at the time. But 6 years later of digging through Indo-European linguistic and religious information made me understand that the shit we believed 5-6 thousand years ago isn't that far removed from the Europe 2.0 Christianity we attribute to the modern era. That's a big reason why I find neo-paganism to be a bit of a joke; I'd almost consider myself a "neo-pagan" by virtue of what I like and am influenced by (believe?) in my (long-term) cultural heritage, if the term hadn't been appropriated by flaky hippies and amateurs who don't understand anything about History.

I avoid the prefix neo- to avoid the same sort of hippie idiots you speak of. The ones with no connection to the past which seeks to understand things as they are, rather than how their nonsensically-named demagogical pseudo-gurus imagine it to be.

That being said, your professor was right even though pagan beliefs persisted. Christianity has become the dominant ethos of Western civilization, which has touched all things, and to be Westerner is to be, in some sense, a Christian. Even if Christianity itself entails connections to previous systems of thought and religion.

[DrSatanDracula]

SnakeEyes:

I have no beef with your argument but you're treading on dangerous ground if you think the Indo-European linguistic affinities and relations are evidence of any kind of ethnic homogeneity. There are more than a few Indo-European speakers who are ethnically different from what we consider "white European" (Dravidian-descended Indians, for one, but look at how every black person in the new world speaks English, French or Spanish languages). The prehistory of the Indo-Europeans is far too confusing and misunderstood for us to be certain of any kind of ethnic core; we're talking about a language family that's been spread from the Tarim Basin in China to the British Isles, and has been the lingua franca for empires in such diverse areas as Anatolia, Africa, Europe, South Asia, Central Asia and the New World.

You are correct in affirming that, specifically in recent centuries, the ethno-linguistic link has become tenuous. As English, French, German, Spanish et cetera, have spread far beyond the traditional Indo-European ethnicities into subjected populaces and foreign lands, we have now a great many African-descended people, Mesitzos, American Indians, et cetera, who have no ethnic ocnnection, but now speak these languages. But previously, it would seem safe to say that there is a reason to suspect that ethnicity and language went in many regards hand to hand.

We find, for instance, certain phenotypes represented amongst speakers of Indo-European languages who are part of the native core. R1A1, R1B, and I. We do not find those outside of these areas in more than < 1%

You speak of the Dravidians, but you also forget that the Dravidians retained a good deal of their linguistic and ethnic difference in India. One can see this both genetically, culturally, ethnically, et al., in India. But you are correct to say that in that area, you have a large ethnic zone of intermixture.

That being said, a Persian and an Irishman, if the Indo-European hypothesis is correct (which I say the evidence is tremendous for), are likely more connected than that Persian to a Chinese or an Irishman to a Greenland Eskimo.

[SnakeEyes]

Originally Posted by DrSatanDracula

That being said, a Persian and an Irishman, if the Indo-European hypothesis is correct (which I say the evidence is tremendous for), are likely more connected than that Persian to a Chinese or an Irishman to a Greenland Eskimo.

Clarify this for me- do you mean genetically or linguistically? Linguistically there is no argument. The reconstruction of PIE is the single greatest and most proven theory in the history of Linguistics, anyone who argues that the model might not be true is a complete moron.

But if you mean genetically, I'd be more careful. More likely to be Caucasoid, sure, but to be of the same ethnicity/have the same ancient ancestors, not so much. Persians and Chinese probably saw a lot more of each other than Persians and Irish did, and in Western Europe IE speakers came into lands that were already occupied by earlier settlers. We know this from genetic evidence in the British Isles (it's the subject of the book Vikings, Saxons and Celts), and from Archaeological evidence in Greece and Anatolia. In the North it stares us in the face; Finns and Lapps still exist in the same lands Germanic peoples hit up three thousand years ago. And the tricky thing for the ethnicity argument is that all these peoples were generally of the Caucasoid type, with some small variations. Throw in super family theories like Nostradic and you have even more problems (this is a theory that suggests PIE, Altaic and Finno-Ugric were originally one language).

Also, some Dravidian peoples speak Dravidian derived languages like Tamil and Tulu, but a lot of them assimilated long ago to IE languages. That was my only point there.