Introduction of sg1008

[Icequeen]

Welcome. 

[El-Presidente]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say you are of the female persuasion, based on your posts.

I'm going to go out on a different limb and say you are of the male persuasion, based on your posts.

Am I right?

LMFAO!!!!

Yes you are right. Technically transgender, but the term two spirit is probably more accurate. Living the role of a male btw, so the preferred pronoun would be "he".

I shall remember this when I address you. May heaven smile upon your masculine role 

['andersom']

In Canada. Wait, did you mean CBC the news station, or CBC short for couldbecousin?

There is only one CBC on I2. THE CBC, the magnificient weeble. 

[sg1008]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say you are of the female persuasion, based on your posts.

I'm going to go out on a different limb and say you are of the male persuasion, based on your posts.

Am I right?

LMFAO!!!!

Yes you are right. Technically transgender, but the term two spirit is probably more accurate. Living the role of a male btw, so the preferred pronoun would be "he".

I shall remember this when I address you. May heaven smile upon your masculine role 

Thanks, shukran.

+1 karma for that

[sg1008]

In Canada. Wait, did you mean CBC the news station, or CBC short for couldbecousin?

There is only one CBC on I2. THE CBC, the magnificient weeble. 

Cool cow btw.

[ZEGH8578]

That is your presumption. No hard feelings though. History written and research by conquerers tends to have a bias towards conquering peoples: either to demonstrate their superiority, or to justify their actions, or something along those lines. Don't assume you know the history of every last society, people, and culture on earth, and don't assume the history you know is accurate.

I think I am safe to assume the Roman empire never attempted gassing of peoples, and the extermination of entire ethnicities through the means of swords, well... I'd like to see anybody try that on a large scale.
One thing is to have the capacity to stab a couple of thousand opponents through the means of a battle
another is the logistical challenge to stab and decapitate millions and millions of people. How do you even make them stand still for decapitation?

Genetic heritage is traceable.
Celtic genes in Europe:

Two options, either all of Europe is swamped by the Irish - OR... These are actual, detectable and even significant remnants of the mainland celtic populations - that the Romans never wiped out but instead assimilated.
For a population to change their language, you need to use a bit of force. I'm not saying it was comfortable.

My other assumption was that human history is ripe with war.

Which one of these assumptions were too unlikely for you?

[sg1008]

That is your presumption. No hard feelings though. History written and research by conquerers tends to have a bias towards conquering peoples: either to demonstrate their superiority, or to justify their actions, or something along those lines. Don't assume you know the history of every last society, people, and culture on earth, and don't assume the history you know is accurate.

I think I am safe to assume the Roman empire never attempted gassing of peoples, and the extermination of entire ethnicities through the means of swords, well... I'd like to see anybody try that on a large scale.
One thing is to have the capacity to stab a couple of thousand opponents through the means of a battle
another is the logistical challenge to stab and decapitate millions and millions of people. How do you even make them stand still for decapitation?

Genetic heritage is traceable.
Celtic genes in Europe:

Two options, either all of Europe is swamped by the Irish - OR... These are actual, detectable and even significant remnants of the mainland celtic populations - that the Romans never wiped out but instead assimilated.
For a population to change their language, you need to use a bit of force. I'm not saying it was comfortable.

My other assumption was that human history is ripe with war.

Which one of these assumptions were too unlikely for you?

Cesar committed genocide when he conquered the Gauls. He decimated entire towns and millions of people, then came back and rewrote history to reflect glorious victories over a barbarous people. Thats a genocide. I am sure if he had poison gas he would have used it.

Other people were assimilated, but not without resistance. It was more like: assimilate or die, and after a generation of brainwashing the sons of chiefs, the ppl began to like their conquerers...any rebels were killed off and given a bad rep (such as the Druids who were law keepers and knew the roman system was BS).

Also in that area, the romans weren't the first to suffer at the hands of colonialism, they learned it and embellished it. So there was already a culture of combat in the area, thats why the romans could convince others to not resist them because if they were under roman rule they would be "protected". Then think about people such as the Gauls, they didn't need protection and were actually formidable enemies, so the romans hated them and just about wiped them out.

Roman expansion can come down to one thing: Gloria. A culture of gaining power based on a conquering/battle victorious/wealth obtaining reputation. They had no real vision or dream for what they were doing other than greed and power.

Take the Inca on the other hand: yes they went about conquering people, but they had a vision about what they were doing. They included people in an economy (mountain ppl provide jerky and potatoes, valley people provide corn, ocean people fish). They had extensive road systems to enable this, far better than romans roads.

Independent of the Inca, peoples who live in the amazon forests could self sustain with the diverse horticulture available to them. They were practically vegetarians too. They had no need for roads, and temples and farms because one permaculture "garden" was easy enough and could sustain an entire family unit.

There are others...I don't know enough to go into detail though. I won't say there were never battles, especially in the north, but battles tend to look different. For instance in the plains they have a concept of counting coup: where a battle would be one based on who could touch more people. It was a demonstration of power and respect of that power. Maybe one or two people would die. They would regularly "war" like this, but when europeans came over and started slaughtering hundreds in one battle they were shocked and appalled. That type of bloodshed was foreign and barbarous to them.

Once you wrap your head around that you have to wonder what other cultural "battles" and conquering stories cannot be truly translated to our english culture who thinks of warriors as people who kill or defend brutal interference.

[ZEGH8578]

The romans slaughtered a lot, yes, I agree, but the pragmatist I am, I don't think it is in any way comparable to WW2 and Nazi Germany's very eager destruction-of-peoples. Jews in Europe are completely decimated, many countries lost ALL jewish population - ALL of it.
That is - if not very very morbid - an achievement. And very few, if not none, can compare to that. 60% of Peruvian genetics is still quechua, this is not the sign of an annihilated population.

I think we're in danger of quarreling semantics now, so... let's agree that the Romans were brutal, but that very little can compare to the brutality and the focus of Hitler's Germany.
Even Japanese random slaughter of Chinese is not comparable, even if the number of Chinese victims is higher than Jewish deaths, because the method, tenacity and focus was not comparable to the nazis.

Btw, concerning amazonian tribes, it is likely that the pre-colonial amazonian populations were considerably lower than they are now, and that many of the extant tribes there are descendants of refugees from the carribean and eastern Brazilian coasts.

Anyway, as I made sure to make sure in my original reply to you, I considered your statement rash and un-thought-through, I did not doubt your personal knowledge about the matters ;] My point stands, a nation isn't hypocritical simply for looking back at its history.
I mean, what do you expect, for a French person to renounce his Latin heritage!? What about me!? My dad is Peruvian, my grandpa is Mestizo, and my grandma Spanish. Whom of these must I resent the most, so not to be a hypocrite?

[sg1008]

The romans slaughtered a lot, yes, I agree, but the pragmatist I am, I don't think it is in any way comparable to WW2 and Nazi Germany's very eager destruction-of-peoples. Jews in Europe are completely decimated, many countries lost ALL jewish population - ALL of it.
That is - if not very very morbid - an achievement. And very few, if not none, can compare to that. 60% of Peruvian genetics is still quechua, this is not the sign of an annihilated population.

I think we're in danger of quarreling semantics now, so... let's agree that the Romans were brutal, but that very little can compare to the brutality and the focus of Hitler's Germany.
Even Japanese random slaughter of Chinese is not comparable, even if the number of Chinese victims is higher than Jewish deaths, because the method, tenacity and focus was not comparable to the nazis.

Btw, concerning amazonian tribes, it is likely that the pre-colonial amazonian populations were considerably lower than they are now, and that many of the extant tribes there are descendants of refugees from the carribean and eastern Brazilian coasts.

Anyway, as I made sure to make sure in my original reply to you, I considered your statement rash and un-thought-through, I did not doubt your personal knowledge about the matters ;] My point stands, a nation isn't hypocritical simply for looking back at its history.
I mean, what do you expect, for a French person to renounce his Latin heritage!? What about me!? My dad is Peruvian, my grandpa is Mestizo, and my grandma Spanish. Whom of these must I resent the most, so not to be a hypocrite?

No, I never said I thought they should renounce or whatnot. I was making the point that Germans were so beat up about Hitler, it wasn't fair to point the finger at them in such a way without doing the same to themselves and their own history (and ongoing genocides...such as the genocide going on simultaneously in North America, Australia, etc).

Also, I am fascinated by the roman impact on europeans not because one should feel ashamed, but because, psychologically speaking, patterns of abuse repeat generation after generation and rarely if ever go away on their own. It tends to take some effort to STOP the pattern...without that effort the instinct will be to continue. In those terms, I think it would be healthier to recognize that your ancestors had an abusive past, and this continued to affect them generations afterwards. It still does today, though things are changing. Cultures are not static: sometimes once warring people, realize the misery they are in and change their ways. This has happened all over the world, there is one notable example among the north american woodland and plains indians... Usually a Jesus type figure comes about to affect massive change...

Also [just to insert something, I generally do this not directed at you] the jews weren't the only ppl who died by the millions. We forget the Gypsies, or Roma people. They were in the same boat. By the millions. What I find interesting is that they are rarely remembered, and even today face probably the most discrimination of all people in europe and america. They never got a homeland or anything like that (mostly because they didn't speak up like european jews, they are more of a private people, and simply migrated away). When people talk about Hitler and genocide, the gypsies should be mentioned along with the jews.

[ZEGH8578]

Also, I am fascinated by the roman impact on europeans not because one should feel ashamed, but because, psychologically speaking, patterns of abuse repeat generation after generation and rarely if ever go away on their own. It tends to take some effort to STOP the pattern...without that effort the instinct will be to continue. In those terms, I think it would be healthier to recognize that your ancestors had an abusive past, and this continued to affect them generations afterwards. It still does today, though things are changing. Cultures are not static: sometimes once warring people, realize the misery they are in and change their ways. This has happened all over the world, there is one notable example among the north american woodland and plains indians... Usually a Jesus type figure comes about to affect massive change...

That is actually quite an intriguing point. I have often tried to explain to people that an individual human - and a population of people - often follow the same kind of psychology and reaction. An abused individual is likely to become an abuser. An abused population consists of abused individuals.

Also [just to insert something, I generally do this not directed at you] the jews weren't the only ppl who died by the millions. We forget the Gypsies, or Roma people. They were in the same boat. By the millions. What I find interesting is that they are rarely remembered, and even today face probably the most discrimination of all people in europe and america. They never got a homeland or anything like that (mostly because they didn't speak up like european jews, they are more of a private people, and simply migrated away). When people talk about Hitler and genocide, the gypsies should be mentioned along with the jews.

This is very true. Another forgotten fact is that while upto 6 million Jews died, around 10 million Germans died. The Jews have long since been avenged. *looks at Israel*
The gypsies are a sad people. Norway sent almost all of them to Germany. The original Norwegian gypsies, the so called "Tater" are completely indistinguishable from "ordinary" Norwegians by now, while a new wave of gypsies have arrived from southern Europe, and naturally people are reacting poorly to it - to the point of sheer racism. They were naturally upset that gypsies took home in city parks in Oslo, but the gypsies didn't like it in the park either, nor did they feel good about the resentment, so they moved to the forest. Yes... the forest.
But guess what!? Somebody turned out to own the forest, and didn't want the gypsies in the forest either. "Um, yes, they... eh... clutter the forest "

People still perpetuate the myth that "gypsies have travel in their blood", no, they have being hounded away "in their blood". What a horrible thing to say about someone... that's like claiming "negroes have lynching in their blood"

[sg1008]

Also, I am fascinated by the roman impact on europeans not because one should feel ashamed, but because, psychologically speaking, patterns of abuse repeat generation after generation and rarely if ever go away on their own. It tends to take some effort to STOP the pattern...without that effort the instinct will be to continue. In those terms, I think it would be healthier to recognize that your ancestors had an abusive past, and this continued to affect them generations afterwards. It still does today, though things are changing. Cultures are not static: sometimes once warring people, realize the misery they are in and change their ways. This has happened all over the world, there is one notable example among the north american woodland and plains indians... Usually a Jesus type figure comes about to affect massive change...

That is actually quite an intriguing point. I have often tried to explain to people that an individual human - and a population of people - often follow the same kind of psychology and reaction. An abused individual is likely to become an abuser. An abused population consists of abused individuals.

Also [just to insert something, I generally do this not directed at you] the jews weren't the only ppl who died by the millions. We forget the Gypsies, or Roma people. They were in the same boat. By the millions. What I find interesting is that they are rarely remembered, and even today face probably the most discrimination of all people in europe and america. They never got a homeland or anything like that (mostly because they didn't speak up like european jews, they are more of a private people, and simply migrated away). When people talk about Hitler and genocide, the gypsies should be mentioned along with the jews.

This is very true. Another forgotten fact is that while upto 6 million Jews died, around 10 million Germans died. The Jews have long since been avenged. *looks at Israel*
The gypsies are a sad people. Norway sent almost all of them to Germany. The original Norwegian gypsies, the so called "Tater" are completely indistinguishable from "ordinary" Norwegians by now, while a new wave of gypsies have arrived from southern Europe, and naturally people are reacting poorly to it - to the point of sheer racism. They were naturally upset that gypsies took home in city parks in Oslo, but the gypsies didn't like it in the park either, nor did they feel good about the resentment, so they moved to the forest. Yes... the forest.
But guess what!? Somebody turned out to own the forest, and didn't want the gypsies in the forest either. "Um, yes, they... eh... clutter the forest "

People still perpetuate the myth that "gypsies have travel in their blood", no, they have being hounded away "in their blood". What a horrible thing to say about someone... that's like claiming "negroes have lynching in their blood"

Ooh, I just had a thought. The Roma people are the only example I know of (off the top of my head) who are a people with a loooooong history of oppression, slavery, genocide, (the whole kit and kaboodle) and yet, do not repeat those cycles within their community. They never really got assimilated...sure they assimilate as well as aspies act NT to blend in and get a job, but beyond that they keep their own culture and language alive and well. There are many Roma who still speak Roma and yet some live in Poland, some live in New York, etc.

They are among the most victimized and yet among the most innocent (non violent) people on earth. Hows that?

[ZEGH8578]

They are among the most victimized and yet among the most innocent (non violent) people on earth. Hows that?

Hmmm, I can only think of their lack of stationary organization. Manpower could also be an issue, in order to gather manpower and be organized, you cannot be chased from place to place. Many a tiny minority is capable of great retribution against its opressor, precisely because they are stationary and organized as a unit, such as the Basques. By being organized, they are capable of amassing wealth in another way. Although one can never truly claim the Basque nation to be super-wealthy, at least it has more of a centralized and unified wealth than the gypsies have, scattered all over the world as they are.

Also, the Basques have a much easyer goal, they have one main "enemy" to direct their effort on, while the gypsies would gain very little by perpetrating terrorism or any other kind of violent opposition in those places they are scattered.


Gypsi neighborhood in Kosice, Slovakia

Bilbao

^
A bit of an exaggeration of my point, but I think that's a major factor. Gypsies simply are not organized "as one", and as scattered groups they haven't got anywhere near the actual physical resources to put up any efficient resistance.

I feel very sorry for the gypsies. I've had strongly anti-racist people talk about gypsies as non-humans, as an "exception" to their otherwise humanist attitudes, it is very sad they are seen like this.
A Japanese historian commenting on WW2 said something interesting (and quite obvious) about human psychology: We are so much more prone to sadism and cruelty against someone who appears pitiful.

[Jack]

Are you going to upload an avatar? You're encroaching on Calavera's uniqueness.

[sg1008]

A Japanese historian commenting on WW2 said something interesting (and quite obvious) about human psychology: We are so much more prone to sadism and cruelty against someone who appears pitiful.

Easy targets....

Although, I thinks its an aspect of the abuse cycle...when you're caught in it, its easiest, and safest, to let your rage out on the dog (so to speak). There are cultures that do not exhibit the same bullying feature of the human psyche we are all too familiar with...they simply know how to respect others and share what they have.

[sg1008]

Are you going to upload an avatar? You're encroaching on Calavera's uniqueness.

Well, since I've had such an awesome welcoming here, I'll upload something...