Identity

submitted by Tarrock from media.communities.win

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Site_rly_sux 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

What, in your mind, is the "white culture and heritage" which unites people in Lapland, Serbia, Ireland, Spain, Belarus? There's no common music, food, heritage, religion, theatre, folk stories, anything at all really other than appearance of skin pigmentation. All those people aren't even all speaking Indo-European languages which would imply a singular heritage. So I think you're just a dumb racist who wants to imply skin appearance is all the culture that you were raised to have...which says a lot about you

[–]TooMuchClay 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

Roman Christian heritage with the unique benefits of: Charity Rational and Reasoned Intellectual Investigation leading to: secular science metaphysics applied ethics Only significant reduction in use of slavery / involuntary labour (at least until it was reintroduced by Protestantism. Sort of).

Although the English speaking world refers to the "Byzantiums" that brought Orthodox Christian civilization to Eastern Europe as "Non Romans" that is a lie by Gibbons and other British Empirialist Apologists. They considered themselves the Eastern Roman Empire and just as Roman as any point in history.

So there is a common cultural root, slowly fading of course.

Jewish Atheist i.e. Kefir culture rejects most of the above (as well as its own rich heritage) so would have to excluded as not sharing similar culture

Also, paktun / afgani people can be "pigmented" and look more "white" facial feature wise than most European Latins yet they wouldn't be included in a shared cultural heritage, so your argument falls over a bit there

[–]Site_rly_sux 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

You're talking nonsense make-believe history

Poland-Lithuania was pagan a thousand years after Rome

Norway was a different pagan a thousand years after Rome

Germany was christianised by the sword by Charlemagne hundreds of years after Rome

It's simply not true that everyone with pale pigmentation has one single empire, religion, language group, culture, music, food

There is no such thing as whiteness, outside of a colonial nationalist setting

[–]TooMuchClay 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The Roman Empire only truly died in the 15th century with the Turkish conquest of Constantinople - the then capital. I'd say it was a husk after the Venetian crusade, but that's hardly "hundreds of years" after "Rome"

Those parts of Europe converted "a thousand years later" were converted by the same Greceo-Roman Orthodox-Catholic culture. Hands down.

You are showing your ignorance of history and making the same mistakes as those disagreeing with you: you've simplified history to the point of nonsense. But you are correct there is no "white" culture, the particular cultural thread they are grasping for can be found anywhere in any skin colour or ethnicity: to deny that is to betray the core tenants of what they supposedly admire

[–]Site_rly_sux 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

What you're suggesting is that anyone who had ancestors existing contemporaneously with a fragment of Rome is...therefore white?

Its nonsense. Virtually anyone who had children 2000 years ago is the ancestor of virtually everyone alive today. There is nothing special that the Baltic Crusaders did to pagan Lithuanians that imparted whiteness on them, at the point of a sword. Whether or not Byzantium stood at the time had no difference to the Baltic Crusade. I am telling you that whiteness is not a factor of being touched by Rome, you cannot bend or falsify history to make that fit

Edit - just still trying to get my head round what is honestly one of the more retarded takes in this thread.

So you're saying that if the Turks in Asia minor were faster at capturing istenpolis/Istanbul and wiping out the ERE...that if the Turks did that quicker - say, completing their conquests earlier than the Baltic crusade or the christianisation of the Norse - then because Rome didn't exist any more, neither the Norwegians or Lithuanians would be considered "white" today?