northern and southern Europe
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: Early Modern & the Imperial Age
Forum Discription: World History from 1500 to the end of WW1
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=15630
Printed Date: 10-Jun-2024 at 02:53
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: northern and southern Europe
Posted By: Guests
Subject: northern and southern Europe
Date Posted: 19-Oct-2006 at 12:21
| Why are the two so culturally different? i mean countries like Italy Greece and Spain remind of countries in the middle east and asia, where ancient traditions are so alive and well. Even the people in these countries are so family oriented, and most of the time they follow family traditions and culture. So how come these kind of things are not alive in northern European countries? or were they ever? |
Replies:
Posted By: Yiannis
Date Posted: 19-Oct-2006 at 12:30
|
One explanation is religion, while maybe not so influential now as in the past. Protestantism tends to encourage individualism and entrepreneurship, while Catholicism and Orthodoxy a more communal way of life.
That in a nutshell, I'm sure there're much more eloquent replies out there, but no time from me to go into further extend right now...
------------- The basis of a democratic state is liberty. Aristotle, Politics Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 19-Oct-2006 at 12:38
|
As I said before, Southern Europe is older than Northern Europe. The origin of the culture of the South are Mediterranean and has a lot of links with the civilizations and cultures of West Asia and North Africa, particularly from Mesopotamia, Persia, the Levante and Egypt.
Northern Europe become westernized a lot of time later. Souther Europe has already its civilizations in place since thousand of years before, like Crete, Greece, Etrusc, Tarsis, etc.
Northern Europe was populated by Germans, Celts, Slavs and Huns that become westernized recently, between the first and the X century A.D.
That marks the difference.
Pinguin
|
Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 19-Oct-2006 at 13:49
|
The same division exist the world over. The prosperous northern part of east Asia and the lazy south. The southern US and Mexico compared to Canada and Northerm America and so on........... One major factor is climate. Before air-con there was little you could do to keep cool and be industrious in the south. ------------- Light blue touch paper and stand well back http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk |
Posted By: Ikki
Date Posted: 19-Oct-2006 at 13:51
|
But forumers, don't forget that northern and southern Europe are more near than the two borders of the mediterranean sea at the moment that the islamic expansion breake the classic mediterranean union.
------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 19-Oct-2006 at 13:56
|
To Paul
You are quite wrong. The Northerners are quite arrogant today because they have had quite a lot of luck during the last three centuries. Yes, the North picked up the Scientific and Industrial Revolutions and got ahead of Southern Europe.... for a while.
And while they were at the top of the world, they invented those ideologies of the superiority of the Nordic peoples, that you repeat here with your climatic rethoric. Remember that those same Nordicist ideas, at the hand of Hitler, took the lives of 50 million people just 60 years ago.
But the luck does not last forever. And today the Northies are in the path of extinction (they don't want kids), and are beeing replaced by more dinamic people from the South.
Those are the ironies of history.
Pinguin
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 19-Oct-2006 at 14:06
On the contrary, I think in the not too distant future not having many children will be the best way to ensure survival. |
Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 19-Oct-2006 at 14:30
Okay, that last sentence convinces me you're just stark raving mad, of course that's a suspicion I've had for a while now. Did anyone say inferiority complex? 
Like Mixcoatl says, a high birthrate only causes problems in the long run. Of course, this isn't really a problem for southern Europe as the birthrates there are more or less equal to those of the north, and some countries like Italy have the lowest birthrates in the world. I must say I feel as if you transfer the relationship between southern and northern America unto the European scene, which causes your distorted view. Unlike America northern and southern Europe has more in common than not, and there is no competitive resentment as far as I can tell, and I've travelled a lot in southern Europe. ------------- |
Posted By: malizai_
Date Posted: 19-Oct-2006 at 15:49
|
http://www.allempires.com/forum/member_profile.asp?PF=1213&FID=5 - Reginmund
this isn't really a problem for southern Europe as the birthrates there are more or less equal to those of the north, and some countries like Italy have the lowest birthrates in the world.
I must say I feel as if you transfer the relationship between southern and northern America unto the European scene, which causes your distorted view. Unlike America northern and southern Europe has more in common than not, and there is no competitive resentment as far as I can tell, and I've travelled a lot in southern Europe. I agree with the above observation totally, but i am little lost as to the basis on which Mixcoatl makes the following statement. A little elaboration might help.
Mixcoatl
On the contrary, I think in the not too distant future not having many children will be the best way to ensure survival. ------------- |
Posted By: Gun Powder Ma
Date Posted: 19-Oct-2006 at 16:13
|
There is not much difference between southern and northern Europeans. Much is just facade. Southern Europeans may be more prone to publicly display family values, but behind the scenes they are just as (un)faithful to their partners as everybody else. |
Posted By: Styrbiorn
Date Posted: 19-Oct-2006 at 16:30
 The Industrial and scientific revolutions were only luck? Yeah, they won the divine lottery and god magically gave them the gifts. Your constant belittling of the ancient Nordic seafarers makes sense now - inferiority complex. Do something to make yourself proud instead of trying to belittle what others have done before you. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 19-Oct-2006 at 16:49
|
Yes. They were just lucky! They picked speed when the south took a nap. (And that happened just 3 centuries ago)
Or do you believe northies are smarter than southies by nature? That there is a genetical superiority of Nordic people because they have colder winters?
Gimme a break!
And about inferiority feelings with respect to Norses? Ha, that's a good one. Even Inuits rowed better than Norses. For sailors, my choice is P-O-L-Y-N-E-S-I-A-N-S. And I haven't a single drop of Polynesian
Well, Polynesians were a lot more easy going that Vikings, anyways.
Pinguin
|
Posted By: Styrbiorn
Date Posted: 19-Oct-2006 at 16:59
Geez, you are jealous. Who talked about genetic supremacy? YOU took that up, no one else.
Luck, that's a new one. I guess the English beat the Spanish Armada with pure luck too
Based on what? This is supposed to be an intellectual forum, so I suppose you have evidence to back this up.
You've met many since you're able to make this conclusion, I'm sure.
|
Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 19-Oct-2006 at 17:04
Well, maybe not because of the winters but there must be some explanation. ------------- |
Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 19-Oct-2006 at 17:24
When some people try to twist other people's words they do they do it with panache, others make a labour of it and just end up sounding silly. ------------- Light blue touch paper and stand well back http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk |
Posted By: Jams
Date Posted: 19-Oct-2006 at 17:34
First, the Nordic countries, except UK(not truly nordic, imho), never ever were "on top of the world".
And secondly, the Nordic countries were in no way supporting Hitler in general. The Germans actually invaded them, just like they did to other countries. We would rather have liked to be left alone, I assure you.
The Germans are mostly central Europe, look at a map.
And there really isn't all that much difference between countries in western Europe, unlike what the first post seem to suggest. Especially not in big urban areas.
There's some difference in cultural heritage, and of course language (Romance vs Germanic) but the difference isn't all that important.
There's a FAR bigger difference between east and west.
------------- |
Posted By: Ikki
Date Posted: 19-Oct-2006 at 17:41
|
Don't lost the control forumers, isn't a question of natural qualities or only climatical or... The better position of southern Europe and then northern Europe should be explained according with a disponibility and complex combination of technology, natural resources, inner culture and foreign influences. A classical example: the roman plough was very good for mediterranean soils and could get from the land great harvest, contrary, the same plough was a bad tool in the hard and deep northern soils where it couldn't broke the land, so poorest harvest than in the south. Contrary: at the moment that the heavy plough from the region between the Loira and the Rhin expanded across northern Europe these portions of the continent overpassed to the south because the new tool could get greats harvest from the northern soils, but, was totally useless in the mediterranean at the moment that the southern soils was thin and relativelly poorest. I can put a lot of this examples for each concept that i said before. Conclusion: the "superiority" is only a circunstancial situation based on a net of complex elemets. I propose come back to the family's question. Pd: And i agree, and repeat, that we are the same historical person at least since the medieval age. We are the two sides of the same face. ------------- |
Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 19-Oct-2006 at 18:03
Apparently Ikki is quite genetically superior even though he doesn't have cold winters. 
Right on, I must say, I didn't consider agriculture's impact on developments. ------------- |
Posted By: Ikki
Date Posted: 19-Oct-2006 at 18:34
O yeah great true, now 11:30 of the night in Canary Islands 23,4 C 
I'm not physiocratic but i agree with they, all begin where the agriculture. ------------- |
Posted By: Joinville
Date Posted: 19-Oct-2006 at 18:50
2004 birthrates: Denmark 1,78 Finland 1,8 Iceland 2,04 Norway 1,83 Sweden 1,75 Cyprus 1,49 Greece 1,29 Italy 1,33 Portugal 1,4 Spain 1,32 Of course none of these countries (except Iceland) are even close to the 2,1 children per female needed to just maintain population numbers without immigration. But at least the Scandinavians seem a lot more prone to make babies than the Mediterraneans these days. ------------- One must not insult the future. |
Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 19-Oct-2006 at 18:55
|
Well, you know, we're just too hot to keep our fingers off each other, much less think about birth control. ------------- |
Posted By: konstantinius
Date Posted: 19-Oct-2006 at 20:09
|
The division of culture on the European continent could be summarily explained as being due to: a) geographical and climactic conditions that affect economy, trade, and distribution of wealth. The Mediterranean, i.e. provided a "safe", closed-waters zone that allowed trade to flourish in a degree the North never reached before 1000 AD. But it was the N. Europeans (and the Spanish and Portugese) who developed ocean-going vessels that allowed them to built transatlantic empires all over the world. b) historic settlement patterns and migrations that laid the base for today's national/linguistic map of Europe. The Germanic tribes, i.e., settled where they did, the Magyars settled in the plain of Hungary, etc. c) external factors, a MAJOR factor in my oppinion. From post-900 AD onwards, NW Europe has been practically devoid of invasions, the Mongols having not reached but the eastern plains of Poland. All the blood that has been shed on the European continent from 1000 AD onwards, belongs to the inhabitants of these regions fighting in intracontinental disputes. Historically Europe was shielded by the expanse of the Russian steppe on one hand and her two extremities on the other: the Iberian peninsula and the Balkans. There, the incursions of the steppe and Islam were contained for hundreds of years, a fact that contributed in allowing N. Europe to develop UNTISTURBED FROM FOREIGN INVASION (except that of Christianity, I might add  ). Also, Spain and the Balkans--Malta too-- are the only two regions that were ever occupied by Islam for a good number of years. And while Spain did away with it early, the Balkans were subject well into the 20th century and their development has been affected accordingly. This is a key factor in the grudge that the south bears today: it is easy for the southern mind--especially the Balkan, especially the Greek, and especially MINE --to consider the N. Europeans as arrogant and unappreciative because they never had to deal with the muftis and aghas; I think this is what Pinguin refers to as "luck", his N. European critics please keep that in mind; and, yes, I also recognise the seemingly incomprehensible--to the N. European mind --Balkan tendency to backstab, infight, gull, deceive, willingly ethnic cleanse and blood-bathe each other for sh*t that happened hundreds of years ago--it'd be incomprenhensible to both Belgians and the Dutch, i.e., that they should go to war today over the rebellion of the Southern Provinces in 1840(?)-- and engage in "effete", corrupt, oriental-style politics.On the other hand I awknoledge that NW Europe--and N. America as an extension-- took the Greco-Roman tradition of indivindualism and representative goverment to incredible heights: Rennaisance, Enlightment, French Revolution, Newtonian science, Darwinism and the evolution of the Natural Sciences, industrial revolution and Liberalism, the Nuclear Age. Also, War and his machine, destructiveness and oppression reached new heigths as well; but this is the dual nature of everything, light and darkness, yin and yang. What can I say, the Celto-Germanic-Finno/Ungrian "barbarians" have learned well . Kudos to you all excluding: mass murder, colonial and imperialistic oppression, unbelievable religious narrow-mindness, classism, and the millions of dead and maimed from the 30 Years', Napoleonic, Crimean, and two World Wars. And we come to today's Europe, a mix of the old and the new, with regional differences and a general , shaky unity under the uncertain institution of the EU plus the added element of mass Islamic/African immigration into the heart of the continent. A volatile mix, a recipe for disaster or the ticket to the future? But that's the subject of another thread... ------------- " I do disagree with what you say but I'll defend to my death your right to do so." |
Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 19-Oct-2006 at 20:48
Sure they are. But why have the traditions, however imperfectly practiced, remained in the South? As another poster mentioned "Catholic and Orthodox Christianity favors a communal approach to society and ones place in it. Protestantism is far more individualistic" - paraphrase. Naturally there are exceptions.
Also, South Europe still has many elements of an "Honor based Culture" Honor based cultures dont like to change. Look at the Middle East. An Honor Based culture in the Balkans explains the conflicts where thousands die over national "insults" that happened centuries ago.
Konstantinius,
I agree, europe is going to change. And where there is change, there is always an increased potential for conflict. Lets hope that the elements discussed on this thread dont happen in the rest of Europe as they already have in the Balkans
http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=15586 - http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=15586
|
Posted By: Gun Powder Ma
Date Posted: 19-Oct-2006 at 21:08
Much of this communal approach is in fact a function of pure economics. For example, in Spain, the culture of which I am fairly well accustomed, young people moved out of their parents' home only in their mid-twenties. But it is not like they would have done so, if they could. In that circumstances it is also difficult to have, for example, a girl-friend. I have never witnessed so much people doing sex in cars like in Spain. On weekends, you can see whole lanes full of cars with drawn curtains. Sounds adventurous, but this just sucks because these people just can't have sex at home. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 19-Oct-2006 at 21:09
The Spanish Armada? Of course it was a luck! Even mother nature it was on the side of Britain.
You've met many since you're able to make this conclusion, I'm sure.
[/QUOTE]
You bet! I know both groups, and Polynesians are more easy going... Indeed!
Pinguin
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 19-Oct-2006 at 21:15
I used the term Nordic instead of Northerners, as opposite to Southerners. I should have said Germanic peoples. And some of these peoples (Brits, Germans, Dutch, etc.) has been on top of the world for a long time by now.
Yes, there are differences. People of Southern Europe always complain of the discrimination they feel in the North. I remember just one of those insults: "Black heads"
There is a huge difference in the way people see human and family relations.
Pinguin
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 19-Oct-2006 at 21:31
I completely agree.
Perhaps I express myself in very rude manner. Sorry about that.
It is just that people of Southern Europe has always heared those comments of inferiority filtering from everywhere in N. Europe and N. America. Even from pseudo-academics. Comments like these:
(1) The better countries are in cold weather. Or worst: cold weather produce a better people (in genetic terms).
(2) The south is lazy, the north works.
(3) The south lives "la vida loca" while the north is responsable and efficient.
(4) The south has always being "inferior". The south is happy being backwards.
(5) The Spanish conquerors were cruel and ambitious, while the British settlers were all educated and good fellows.
(6) Catholicism is backwards while Protestantism is progressive.
(7) The south is vicious, the north pure. The south is corrupt, the north is smart in business deals.
(8) We, the north, know it better.
And thousand of other more in the same style, hurts day by day people that happens to be born in the South.
It is not envy or hate that motivates certain reactions -particularly mine- but the sincere desire to express how it feels to be considered inferior.
Well, I am not even Southern European but Latin American, but I know the situation quite well, because it affects our fellow Spanish people. And it is very well know for us, that Latin Americans are considered in an even lower level than Southern Europeans.
Pinguin
|
Posted By: Timotheus
Date Posted: 20-Oct-2006 at 00:00
|
Well, stop feeling hurt and start showing what you're worth. No sense moping around. Although you seem remarkably misinformed by saying the North is not having children. You are right that they are not, but the South of Europe has even lower birthrates. In a hundred years, the population of Spain will be less than half what it is now, if present trends continue. The USA is the only member of the "First World" that has birthrates above replacement rate - 2.1% - it barely clears it. Europe, Japan, and all the other industrialised countries of the world save the USA are headed for a population bomb. And don't deceive yourselves, your country will not be better off with fewer people. You all can say goodbye to your former economic prowess. |
Posted By: think
Date Posted: 20-Oct-2006 at 00:52
When ive heard American rants they arent complaining about "spanish" people but more the Hispanics, like Mestizos. |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 20-Oct-2006 at 04:28
|
The cultural divide over conservative 'values' isn't between countries, but mostly between city and country. And it always has been.
Milan and Calabria, Madrid and Galicia, are even more different in that regard that London and Cornwall. Or consider Cologne and the Eiffel, geographically close, culturally very different. Or Paris and the Dordogne. Even here in Luxembourg attitudes are very different in the capital than they are up in the Oesling.
Incidentally, Pinguin confuses 'North and South' in the American sense with 'North and South' in the European. Southern Europe is still well north of the equator.
The theory that cold climates produce harder workers (right or wrong) predicts that Argentina and Chile would be more successful than Colombia and Ecuador. And that Alabama and Mississippi would lag behind Illinois and New York. Which are not untenable theses.
------------- |
Posted By: Jams
Date Posted: 20-Oct-2006 at 06:08
No, there's not. Not in urban areas, at least. Anyway France was also an "on top" country, and even Italia was too - remember Mussolini? There's no big north/south divide, although there used to be in the past, but not anymore at all.
And theres cultural differences between countries no mater if it north south or east west, it's more country to country thing. After all the difference between Spanish and French mentality is quite big.
As someone else wrote, there's an urban/rural divide, and that's in every country, and rural people have traditionally been very much family oriented, with farms and such being inherited being one of the reasons. It's all about small static comminities versus big dynamic urban areas. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 20-Oct-2006 at 15:58
You are right that Spain and Italy have had problems now. There was a huge change in mentality in Spain when it entered the European Union. Suddenly, money and success counted more that the traditional values of the family and passionate religion. They will have to pay the price, I am afraid. I don't know if Spain will survive as a people or it will become an empty egg, a museum populated by alliens of the Africa, Asia and Ecuador.
That would be a pitty for the people like ourselves, who descend in part of Spain. I bet that sudden injection of "northern" mentality of the '70s killed Spain more than the Vandals, the Moors, the Protestants, or any war or challenge of the past.
Pinguin
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 20-Oct-2006 at 16:06
You know very well what I mean, and why I said it so. Because that's the way many people thinks.
Well, I lived in a developed country during five years, and I know the attitude against kids that many people has in the rich country. Not all the people is like that, but many preffer to have an Audi rather than a baby.
Now, the U.S. is growing thanks to immigration and, perhaps, because Americans love theirs land. After all, the people of the U.S. love their land with passion like it should be. And people that love its land and coutry has kids. Not just import them or buy them in the international addoption supermarkets.
You know. I can become upset of many things the U.S. government does. But I admire their people still loves theirs country.
Well, my country is thinking in importing Asians in mass already. Our problem is that many people left the country in the past and is still leaving the country that population growth stopped. Perhaps we'll follow your path soon.
I wonder what will happens in the near future when Chinese and other asian countries will enter in a population bust as well.
Pinguin
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 20-Oct-2006 at 16:15
Yes. Americans usually downplay the countries south of the border because they are Mestizos (Euro-Amerindian). Actually that mixture is dominant above all other races in mainland Latin America, with the exception of the Caribbean.
However, you find Mestizos of all shades. Some are, by any way you look at them, exactly like Europeans, even blonds (you won't know they are mixed if they don't tell you). Others look in between. And some look pure Amerindians. Depending on the country you go the people looks different
Besides, there are some minorities of Blacks, Whites and Asians as well.
But now things are becomming riduculous. Actually, some places of the United States are today "darker" than most places in Latin America
. For example, in Souther Brazil you find more whites that in the U.S. And non-white peoples and mixtures are booming in the United States right now.Besides, by 2050 1 in four people will be Hispanics.
So I am certain "Americans" will have to change their racist attitudes against Latin America quite fast. They are outdated and really ridiculous by now.
Pinguin
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 20-Oct-2006 at 16:21
|
One thing is for sure, Northeners and Southernes are different races but yeah many have interminlged with each other over the centuries. |
Posted By: think
Date Posted: 20-Oct-2006 at 23:22
Are Slavs a different race aswell? |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 20-Oct-2006 at 23:35
|
To Lara:
Yes. I agree on that.
Believe me or not, even in Latin America, a region that is mainly populated by the descendents of Southern Europeans and Natives, you can find large population of Northern Europeans with Oktoberfests included.
In countries like Brazil, Uruguay, Argentina and Chile, the descendents of Northern Europeans are nothing strange to see at all. It is funny how some people of U.S. and Europe complain about the blonds on Latin American TV and forget that although blonds are minoritary, they do exist in important numbers in there as well.
 Xuxa, Brazil.
 Kenita Larrain, Chile
 Valeria Mazza, Argentina (my favorite
)Pinguin
|
Posted By: think
Date Posted: 20-Oct-2006 at 23:45
|
I know this Spanish girl who has Blonde hair an Blue eyes... But i know this other girl who id from the South of Spain who has Dark hair, dark eyes an dark hair....Yet shes got a small nose an has got a Nordic look in the face... Also this other Spanish girl has Pure White skin Brownish hair an really dark eyes... If you said they were all from Spain the regular Joe would prob look confused... |
Posted By: think
Date Posted: 20-Oct-2006 at 23:55
Then they wouldnt be regarded as Mestizos if they look European.. Like i said when ive hear Anglo American rants on Mexicans, they are referring to the Mestizos. Not the Mexicans who are of European descent.. So if someone from South America looks European then they arent going to be called a Mestizo.. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 21-Oct-2006 at 00:36
That's curious, because the concept of Mestizo, in Latin America is not related with phenotype (aspect) but with ancestry. If you see the statistics of Chile (my country), for instance, it says it is 90% mestizo, because is true, most people has some Amerindian ancestry. However, most people has an European look, and many are even blond.
These are average Chileans:
 I have notice, too, that many Central Americans and Mexicans that call themselves Mestizos, they are not. They are mainly Amerindians without much European admixture.
Pinguin
|
Posted By: think
Date Posted: 21-Oct-2006 at 00:51
|
They dont look anything like the sterotypical Mestizo^ Im not from America, but because Illegal immigration is a hot topic that is discussed everywhere on forums, you will become an expert on American politics through the internet Question: Are the Chiliean natives the same as Peruvians an Aztecs ? |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 21-Oct-2006 at 01:08
|
Well, not at all. There are physical differences between Natives that are quite amazing. The Native of the Andes and Aztecs are dark skinned, round faces and short. The Mapuches are more Japanese-looking fellows, taller with longer faces, very nice facial features, thin lips and lighter skins (some actually can pass as Japaneses; it has happened).
The Natives of Chile are mainly Mapuches, which was a culture less developed culture than the Peruvians. They were mainly farmers, that didn't build cities, and lives a simpler life. However, they were also the best warriors of Southern South America, that not only combat the Spaniards but stopped them.
Even the way of being of Mapuches is different from a Quechua or an Aymara. The Natives of the Andes are very modest and of nice manners; friendly and nice people who are easy to love. The Mapuches, on the other hand, are extremely proud people and always make clear they don't like westerners (they call us the robbers (huincas)).
These are Mapuches, the proud original peoples of Chile and Argentina.
   Pinguin
|
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 21-Oct-2006 at 06:09
No. There was an apparent big shift in Spanish culture when Franco died, but that was only because the dictatorship had been suppressing the expression of changes that were happening in Spain just like elsewhere in Europe. Without that change it would never have joined the EU in the first place.
There was no great difference between Spaniards and other Europeans in their outlook on life in the '60s: it was just that under the Falangists it had to be hidden. Only of course to burst forth when the regime collapsed.
------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 21-Oct-2006 at 08:14
|
Well, but when do Spaniards forgot to reproduce?
I mean, when the family become forgotten and all that matters was money and success? Why it did happened in Spain? a country that preached the family values throughout the world, but specially in the Americas, for centuries.
Pinguin
|
Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 21-Oct-2006 at 11:21
|
"I have notice, too, that many Central Americans and Mexicans that call themselves Mestizos, they are not. They are mainly Amerindians without much European admixture."
That is because the term Mestizo is used differently in Mexico.
By the definition of the Mexican government, only people able to speak an Amerindian language are considered to be Amerindians. (There are a few exceptions where the native langauges are extinct). Thus, about 15% of Mexicans are Amerindians by the definition of the Mexican government.
Most other Mexicans (80%) are classified as Mestizo, even if they have mostly Amerindian blood (cant speak Amerindian language). The remaing Mexican are classifed as "White" (5%). Most of these are Spaniards, Germans, Jews and a few Russians and Lebanese.
Mexicans also use the term Huero (a) to describe very light complected hispanic Mestizos. The term can be both a compliment or a mild insult depending on how it is used.
P.S. Wow, youare right when you mentioned that the indigenous people in Chile look Japanese or Polynesian. I have noticed that some Mexican Mayans also have a very Asian appereance.
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 21-Oct-2006 at 12:07
Yes. They look Asian, which is not strange because pure Native Americans are related to Siberian-Mongolian populations, as genetics has shown. Today most Natives have some degree of admixture with Europeans in the Americas, and in the Caribbean and Brazil with Africans.
Here I got some pictures of absolutely pure Austral Natives (Kawashkars, Yaganes) at the time of contact (1900) and how they look:
  Yagana women in a religious mission.
 In here the lady at the center is European
 And this kids are their modern descendents in Puerto Eden, Chile
 Pinguin
|
Posted By: Jams
Date Posted: 21-Oct-2006 at 16:55
|
How about Canadian Métis, is that the same as Mestizo?
Like her:
http://imageshack.us">  ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 21-Oct-2006 at 16:59
Race and ethnicity are before all culturally determined. So if people feel like mestizos and behave like mestizos they are mestizos. Genetical background is completely irrelevant.
Of course they aren't. Even divisions between 'Caucasian', 'Negroid' and 'Mongoloid' are highly problematec. Considering people from different parts of Europe different races is downright ridiculous.
I hope that will happen too, but I'm afraid it would. Historiy teaches us that whether it makes sense or not in the end people will always find a way to consider other people fundamentally different or even inferior.
What's wrong with not having kids? This planet is already overpopulated,. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 21-Oct-2006 at 17:59
Yes. Meti is the french world for Mestizo, or a mixture between European and Native American. You should not confuse an aspect (white, brown, asian) with a genetic heritage. Almost half of all real mestizos (not pure Indians but mixtures with European) are impossible to distinguish from Southern European, and there are also many blonds.
This is Ximena Huilipan, a Mapuche Native that has white admixture (she is mestizo). She is absolutely gorgeous.
 In here she looks white
 And now Ximena looks Native
 In the U.S. people use the disgusting expresion "half blood" for the same mixture, while in Brazil the name is Cabloco or Mameluco.
In Canada, Meti culture is something unique, because is a syncretic heritage that is different of both Native American and the Western society.
In Latin America most mestizos are assimilated to the mainstream; but we can say the "mainstream" itself is a mestizo culture. In the U.S. there are also many mestizos that call themselves either "White" or "Native American" but is not common for people in the U.S. to recognize they are mixed people.
Finally, people should not confuse Mestizos (Euro-Indigenous) with Mulattos (Euro-Africans), Sambos (Afro-Indigenous) or tri-racials (Euro-Afro-Indigenous), nor with Europeans, Ethnic Indians or Blacks, because they are different ethnic groups, each one with its own roots and history.
Mestizos in the past where the most lucky of all mixed peoples of the Americas. In Canada, Brazil and Hispanic Americas, most mestizos were considerated Europeans and assimilated with easy. Other groups suffer more discrimination.
Pinguin
|
Posted By: Timotheus
Date Posted: 22-Oct-2006 at 00:00
Quite aside from the part about the northern mentality, what the poor Protestants ever do to Spain, except make jobs for the executioners who were in a sort of a job market bust with no Jews or Muslims left?
Racist attitudes? There's the anti-immigration wave (which I am against) but that's more economic xenophobia than racism. |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 22-Oct-2006 at 02:50
They didn't forget. Believe me a lot of reproductive activity still goes on. But contraception isn't illegal the way it was under Franco when the Church still had a dominant political role.
The way society is organised now in Spain and the developed world, you no longer need so much to breed children to support you in middle and old age.
A false dichotomy. What happened was that the growth in community spirit, through various degrees and kinds of socialism and its implementation in the welfare state made concentration on family self-help less necessary.
It wasn't that 'family values' were given up for 'money and success' but the narrow mentality they represent was supplanted by a more general and generous care for society at large.
Everyone else was also preaching 'family values' for centuries, in countries as dissimilar as the Europe ones, north and south, China and India. Preaching them doesn't mean actually practising them, as is apparent in the Republican party in the US.
Moreover 'family values' are not incompatible with hunger for money and success, and have gone hand-in-hand over the centuries. What they are incompatible with is social justice and fairness.
------------- |
Posted By: think
Date Posted: 22-Oct-2006 at 02:53
Ever hear the term Wigga?? If you act Black an talk Black does that make you Black, no it doesnt. What do you mean completely irrelevant  I think i understand what your saying, but i just think you get it man, you need to get out more bro.People get laughed at for acting like something theyre not theyre called wannabes...
Impossible to distinguish mmmm i dunno man Mexican Mestizos dont look European at all. You can see the European influence in them, but by saying they look like Spaniards is incorrect.. |
Posted By: Kynsi
Date Posted: 22-Oct-2006 at 03:42
Why is it always a must to have somekind of a warrior past to mesure the worthyness of a nation? Personally what I have heard from the veterans I just wonder how people survive those conditions.  ------------- If you keep one eye on the past then you are blind in one eye, but if you forget the past then you are blind in both eyes -old russian saying |
Posted By: konstantinius
Date Posted: 22-Oct-2006 at 07:05
|
Low birth rates are a result of: a) economics: it is simply too expensive to bring up children in Europe and N. America today. People have to work more and there's no time for family. b) the culture of indivindualism has taken its toll on family. People in the West are too independent, brake early with their families and have to do everything themselves, including rearing of children. The image of the grandmother staying with the children when the parents were away (mine were off to the theatre, mind you, not work) is becoming a rare phenomenon in the West today. The upbringing of children is a GROUP thing in a sense, hard to achieve in the modern culture of the One. ------------- " I do disagree with what you say but I'll defend to my death your right to do so." |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 22-Oct-2006 at 07:56
Yes. The peopl who support you in middle and old age are immigrants now, not your own children.
Well, I know that since long time ago, because I lived in a developed country, that most Europe and North America is quite happy to become extinct.
In Latin America people still fight to have children no matter is getting quite expensive. We still preffer our own kind rather than import foreigners to pay our welfare checks when we get old. However, the influence of the decadent mentality of the west in our people is a matter of concern by now.
Things happenes because a reason. Perhaps its time other people, who love life more, take the control of the situation.
Pinguin
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 22-Oct-2006 at 08:02
Average Mexicans are around 50% Native and 50% European. There are many groups that are 80% Native and 20% European in Mexico, particularly in the immigrants that go to the U.S.. People of Guatemala or Chiapas is 100% indigenous. Latin America as a whole is around 25% Indigenous but proportion vary between regions and countries.
But I bet you can't distinguish a Mestizo who is 20% Native/ 80% European from an actual European! Actually, most White Americans are around 8% Native Americans! Do you know that? And do you know most Norther Europeans are around 3% Asian!
Pinguin
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 22-Oct-2006 at 08:06
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 22-Oct-2006 at 08:18
Well, it is not we chose to have a warrior past, but Chile was one of those places that cost more blood to Spaniards than they expected.
We have many Native cultures we are proud of: Aymaraes with theirs wonderful three-state-logic language that fascinates computer scientists; Easter Islanders with theirs Moais, the Austral native cultures and the marvellous art style of the Diaguitas. However, the Mapuches were different, because they were a warrior society that actually stopped the Spaniards.
They were so brave and so smart in battle, Spaniards themselves recognized its worth. Mapuches were as cruel as the Spaniards, and took revenge and humilliated them. Spaniards used to cut the hands of Natives, well, mapuches eat theirs hearts alive. Spaniards convert Natives women in lovers, Mapuches destroyed the town, killed the European males and took the European women with then. Spaniards have to drink its own poisson. Mapuches never gave up. It were us, the Chileans who defeated them and not the Spaniards.
The only country in the Americas were Spaniards expended more money that what they take out it was Chile, if you add the expenses to keep the stable the Mapuche frontier and the attacks of the British pirates.
How come we could not identify with the Mapuches when we have the same arrogant attitude? They are our role model. And when the creoles declared the Independence from Spain, it was the star of the Mapuche people the one they chose for our flag.
Pinguin
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 22-Oct-2006 at 11:04
You're right there. Let me refrase the way I view ethnicity: If you feel like a certain ethnicity, behave like that etnicity and are accepted by other people of that ethnicity, you have that ethnicity.
I really don't see why not getting children is decadent. On the other hand, I may even argue that having chilren is selfish. For example, it can perfectly be defended that it's very selfish to have children in order to have your old age guaranteed. Also the world is already overpopulated, more people will only put a bigger stress on the environment, space and natural resources. Just think of it this way: not having a child equals recycling everything you use during your entire life. |
Posted By: think
Date Posted: 22-Oct-2006 at 11:17
Yes that can work, but only in limited numbers. Once people get enough numbers, the point of fitting in is pointless. I know people of other races who act "White" yet i dont see them as traitors to their original cultures or whatever. Infact ive never actually used the term acting White, but the only reason they think an perhaps act the way they do is because they have grown up in a White world rather than a community dominated by people of their ethnicity an race..
Europes not.. |
Posted By: think
Date Posted: 22-Oct-2006 at 11:24
|
Pinguin. This dude here is from brazil, his names Wanderlai Silva.. Im pretty sure he has some native in him, so would he be classified as White or Mestizo ?   |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 22-Oct-2006 at 12:19
Just wait until natural resources run out. In the premodern age excessive population growth was corrected every few decades or so by a substinence crisis (famine, desease, war). The last time this happened in Europe was in the 1840s. Since then technological advances have made continued population growth possible. However when we'll run out of natural resources, that will end. So if we don't bring now the number of people now by getting less children, it will happen later, and in a much nastier way. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 22-Oct-2006 at 12:39
I don't know. We would need a genetic test. I believe the person is either 100% white or perhaps has certain Black ancestry on him. But nobody can be certain in genetics. I don't see Native facial features on him, besides, boxing change facial features with easy
Pinguin
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 22-Oct-2006 at 12:43
Well, I will make a politically incorrect statement here. If you want to stop population growth you have to convince those people that are reproducing out of control right now. I mean basically Arabs, South West Asians and particularly Subsaharan Africans.
Europeans can't even mantain its current populations estable, so they don't have an explossion problem. Rather, they are hardly surviving right now.
Pinguin.
|
Posted By: Joinville
Date Posted: 22-Oct-2006 at 16:05
Oh they're surviving fine. And their societies are still doing well. The fact that there's going to be a demand for people to come and make a living in then is hardly a bad thing for anyone. It's a wealth thing. Once these non-europeans start catching up the west in wealth their birth-rates will drop, and when western absolute wealth starts to decline them birth rates will pick up again. ------------- One must not insult the future. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 22-Oct-2006 at 18:05
|
Well, I will make a politically incorrect statement here. If you want to stop population growth you have to convince those people that are reproducing out of control right now. I mean basically Arabs, South West Asians and particularly Subsaharan Africans. So people who get only a few children should get more and people who get many children should get only a few? Isn't that a bit inconsequent? Besides, population growth rates in Latin America are still pretty high as well. Rather, they are hardly surviving right now. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 22-Oct-2006 at 18:37
No, they are not. What you are seeing is people not dying as yet. I mean, old people is living longer. In many places of Latin America the same problems of Europe are comming up for the next generations.
Sorry. For population explosion you'll have to complain to other continents.
Pinguin.
|
Posted By: Adalwolf
Date Posted: 22-Oct-2006 at 18:42
|
To all: what is the optimal population level for Earth? 1 billion? 4 billion? What do you think? |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 22-Oct-2006 at 19:29
Yes they are: Argentine 0.96% Belize 2.31% Bolivia 1.45% Brazil 1.04% Chile 0.94% Colombia 1.46% Costa Rica 1.45% Cuba 0.31% Dominican Republic 1.47% Ecuador 1.5% El Salvador 1.72% French Guiana 1.96% Guatemala 2.27% Haiti 2.3% Honduras 2.16% Mexico 1.16% Nicaragua 1.89% Panama 1.6% Paraguay 2.45% Peru 1.32% Puerto Rico 0.4% Uruguay 0.46% Venezuela 1.38% Not as high as Subsaharan Africa, but still pretty impressive, most are well above the growth rates of wealthier countries. Also notice that relatively wealthy countries (Argentina, Uruguay, Chile) have lower growth rates than poorer countries (Honduras, Peru, Haiti). Don't forget that if a country's population grows with 2%, there needs to be an economical growth of 2% as well in order to maintain standards of living.
Perhaps not dying. But no doubt living circumstances would be a lot better with less people. And if the population will continue to grow like that sooner or later the Maltusian trap will close. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 22-Oct-2006 at 19:59
|
Is an audi worth a child?
I have already chosen. I preffer my kids to luxury. After all, our descendents remain on the planet, and the material things can't be put on the coffin.
Pinguin
|
Posted By: konstantinius
Date Posted: 22-Oct-2006 at 20:08
You don't have to send your Audi to school; on the other hand car mechanics can be pretty expensive these days ------------- " I do disagree with what you say but I'll defend to my death your right to do so." |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 22-Oct-2006 at 20:20
|
Yes. You save a lot of money by not having kids. That's the reward nature gaves you for giving up.
Pinguin
|
Posted By: think
Date Posted: 22-Oct-2006 at 20:22
You couldnt have said it more simply (its not a simple matter), but i dont agree with you.. |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 23-Oct-2006 at 04:33
Is there something wrong with that? The immigrants generally get a good deal out of it too.
And of course they are mostly running away from places that have been kept economically backward by concentration on 'family values'.
Why on earth do you consider that a good thing? One would hope that humanity had evolved past the pure animal stage.
Very chauvinistic of you. Incidentally is there a long queue of foreigners trying to migrate to Chile?
The reason people in economically backward countries have more children (apart from the religious issues) is that the economic benefits of children's labour outweigh the costs of bringing them up.
It has nothing to do with 'love of life' except in the sense that your life will be better if you have more children working. ------------- |
Posted By: Joinville
Date Posted: 23-Oct-2006 at 05:12
Of course not. But doesn't your kid deserve an Audi, if you want the best for him? It's more like "One Audi for each kid". And then these kids go around in Audis while yours have to ride the buss. It's about investing heavily (education mostly, which is way more expensive than cars) in the few children you get, not getting a lot of children hoping one of them will be able to afford giving you an Audi in your old age. ------------- One must not insult the future. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 23-Oct-2006 at 08:52
You should give that advice to Subsaharan Africans. Not to me. All my kids are getting college education.
Pinguin
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 23-Oct-2006 at 09:04
Yes. It is easier to BUY people abroad that having kids. That's for sure.
And the "family values" I was thinking were the ones your grandparents and even your parents have, but that your generation forgot.
Well, the animal that does not reproduce get extinguished. Do you believe the immigrants will keep your culture alive? Forget it. If you people don't preserve live you will be forgoten like the Neaderthal man is forgotten today. That's the "animal stage". The weak perish and the strong survive.
The law of the jungle is still here, between the skycrappers.
Quite a lot. Many Peruvian nanies and even some DR prostitutes. However, most of immigrant we have add value to the country, like Koreans enterpreneurs, Argentinean professionals and some Americans and Europeans that are feed up with the developing countries style of live.
We still select who comes in. And we don't pay welfare checks to refugees.
Yes. The economical benefits. I guess the states should not pay the welfare checks of so many old European and North American senior citizens that live on the shoulders of immigrants and the few of theirs fellow citizens, because they decided it was more fun to avoids kids when they could?
What is more shameful, that the family colaborates with the elders, or that strangers support you at the end?
In any case, most people in Latin America don't live on theirs kids anyways, so that claim, so many times repeated, of the old people having kids because of the economic benefits, it is a fallacy.
Pinguin
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 23-Oct-2006 at 13:24
Just check gcle's profile. |
Posted By: Joinville
Date Posted: 23-Oct-2006 at 13:35
I didn't think macroeconomic musings counted as personal advice?  ------------- One must not insult the future. |
Posted By: Timotheus
Date Posted: 24-Oct-2006 at 00:20
| Dear me! Are people still ranting about the population bomb? What did Paul Ehrlich predict would happen in the year 2000? |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 24-Oct-2006 at 03:31
You shouldn't speak out of ignorance. My parents' generation saw the biggest drop in child-bearing in general, so that most of the children I knew were single children. My birth year had the lowest child-bearing rate in the UK in history: it was only matched a year or two ago.
By contrast, my grandparents were very fertile, one pair having seven children and the other six, while I myself have three children and most of my contemporaries also have more than one child, frequently three or four. That's why it was called the 'baby boom'.
You overlook that in modern conditions it is the societies that have most children that are weak. The countries that have emerged as strong contenders are specifically those like China and Japan that have encouraged or force limitations on child-bearing, while the ones that don't remain weak, divided, hungry and poor, and are likely to stay that way.
That's why the migrants leave them.
Sinclair Lewis once wrote "When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross". He could have added 'and preaching family values and the future of the race'.
Substitute general 'religious symbols' for 'a cross' and you can drop out 'to America' because it is true everywhere.
Neither of them is shameful at all. That's as bad a misuse of a word as referring to the despicable crime of murdering one's own child as 'honour killing'.
Children and old people require looking after in some fashion or other. There's no shame in that: it certainly doesn't matter much what the social mechanism is.
I don't know about Latin America particularly, but in the world at large and in history at large the benefit of having children is economic. Neo-fascist stuff about perpetuating the race doesn't come into it.
To run a farm or an estate or any primitive economic undertaking (or to raise primitive armies) you need people. To get more people you need children. The late stages of the industrial revolution - from Ford's assembly line onward - has changed that.
To keep the economy going you no longer need so many people: there aren't the jobs for them to do, as they one by one get automated out. So we need now a smaller, more and more productive population, and we're tending to get one.
Countries that don't follow that development are in trouble and heading for more.
------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 24-Oct-2006 at 12:20
|
Yes, I agree with you and with most of what you said.
It is just that when I lived abroad, in a developed country, I perceived certain "fashion" for avoiding to have kids. Perhaps it was a problem of perception.
People in cities has less kids than people in the countryside, and that's a fact. But I hope they have at least the necesary to keep going.
Best regards, and sorry if I confussed your generation. It was not my intention and my apologies.
Omar Vega (alias Pinguin)
|
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 25-Oct-2006 at 07:09
On the generation thing - that's OK. I'm used to it. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 15-Jan-2007 at 12:08
|
"The division of culture on the European continent could be
summarily explained as being due to:
|
). Also, 
--to consider the N.
Europeans as arrogant and unappreciative because they never had to deal with
the muftis and aghas; I think this is what Pinguin refers to as
"luck", his N. European critics please keep that in mind; and, yes, I
also recognise the seemingly incomprehensible--to the N. European mind
--Balkan tendency to backstab, infight, gull, deceive, willingly ethnic cleanse
and blood-bathe each other for sh*t that happened hundreds of years ago--it'd
be incomprenhensible to both Belgians and the Dutch, i.e., that they should go
to war today over the rebellion of the Southern Provinces in 1840(?)-- and
engage in "effete", corrupt, oriental-style politics.
. Posted By: Jams
Date Posted: 15-Jan-2007 at 19:12
|
Well, thank you then!
I guess you wasn't personally part of said buffer, though?
But I'm glad we were never invaded where I live. By anyone. Except Hitlers minions! ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 15-Jan-2007 at 21:51
| No, bud, I was not personally the part of the buffer zone (unless you consider the last war in Bosnia as the fight against Jihad, though many would agree on this). However, everything, and I mean, everything that happened over there is deeply connected to the Turkish conquest of Balkans and a history of "being located on the wrong crossroads" (meaning there was always a war there due to its strategic location between the continental Europe and Asia Minor). Your ancestors probably did not have to run into the mountains to continue the fight against the aggressor (unfortunately our ancestors have had to, from the medieval times through both world wars as they always fought and never surrendered: Hungarians, Turks, Austrians, Germans). According to numerous historians, 14th century Serbia was more populated than contemporary England only to see ~ 1/2 of its male populations killed in the First World War and another 1,000 000 in WW2 (my own great-grandfather was murdered in the Croatian Jasenovac concentration camp). On top of that, I felt the last war (Bosnia) on my own skin, being shelled in my own city. Balkans are such wonderful place to be, right? |
Posted By: perikles
Date Posted: 17-Jan-2007 at 05:10
|
OKrojsha i think you are right. We (Serbia and Greece) has suffered from many wars and especialy from Turkey. And even after that we reach a point (Greece more easily, Serbia now starts to become acive again) that not many nations suffering from what we did would have achieved. That shows the strength of our people, our culture. And thes are characteristics of south Europe nations. Greek and Roman culture are obvious in our systems. ------------- Samos national guard. 260 days left. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 17-Jan-2007 at 12:36
| Thank you your reply, Perikles. I think that's a general feeling/motif throughout Balkans. Personally, I cannot find a word good enough to describe the value of contribution of Greek civilization to the world. It is sad that so many people do not seem to be aware of this. Best regards to everyone! |
Posted By: konstantinius
Date Posted: 17-Jan-2007 at 14:58
|
Ellas-Servia-Orthodoxia
------------- " I do disagree with what you say but I'll defend to my death your right to do so." |
Posted By: alexISS
Date Posted: 18-Jan-2007 at 03:04
|
Thanks to the climatic changes, northern Europe will soon be blessed with southern-like winters, then we will all be blessed with southern lazyness. Northerns and Southerns will live together in harmony, just before the world comes to an end, I can't wait!
------------- "Military justice is to justice what military music is to music" Groucho |
Posted By: think
Date Posted: 20-Jan-2007 at 22:19
| Whats "evil" about Byzantine ? |
Posted By: perikles
Date Posted: 23-Jan-2007 at 07:52
what do you mean? ------------- Samos national guard. 260 days left. |
Posted By: Patrinos
Date Posted: 23-Jan-2007 at 08:07
Maybe he've read this:
I don't understand either.If we compare the Byzantine society and culture with that of Medieval Western Europe I think that we'll find much difference,I mean that Byzantines never fell in dark ages but just some periods of decline. ------------- "Hellenes are crazy but they have a wise God" Kolokotronis |
Posted By: perikles
Date Posted: 23-Jan-2007 at 08:18
|
and even when Byzantines where not at their peak never burn people for magic or burn books etc. Of course Theodosios B the Great was, lets say an exception. He had an obsession with christianity and he was brutal behaviour regarding anything that reminded him ancient Greek civilization ------------- Samos national guard. 260 days left. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 24-Jan-2007 at 20:33
|
" Maybe he've read this:
I don't understand either.If we compare the Byzantine society and culture with that of Medieval Western Europe I think that we'll find much difference,I mean that Byzantines never fell in dark ages but just some periods of decline. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pericles, that is exactly what I was saying. Instead of giving the old Greek/Byzantine culture its due respect, today we've got a negative meaning/connotation (according to Oxford English Dictionary): "A. adj. a. Belonging to Byzantium or Constantinople; also, reminiscent of the manner, style, or spirit of Byzantine politics. Hence, intricate, complicated; inflexible, rigid, unyielding." On the other hand, Balkanization means "to make something savage,wild". So much about our cultural heritage and the contribution to a mankind (N.Tesla, Rudjer Boskovic, Ivo Andric, or Cirilus and Methodius, Justinian, Constantine the Great, literacy and democracy etc.). |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 24-Jan-2007 at 20:51
|
The Western world adopted Britain's liberalism while much of Eastern Europe adopted Conservatism. ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi"> 
Join us. |
Posted By: Patrinos
Date Posted: 25-Jan-2007 at 06:35
I think that West,and more specifically the Protestant West,is much more conservative than Orthodox and Catholic East and South.See British Puritanism. Fortunately,Byzantine studies are at last evolving after hundreds of years of prejudice. ------------- "Hellenes are crazy but they have a wise God" Kolokotronis |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 25-Jan-2007 at 12:33
I think you got it mixed up... Britain and France were among the most liberal nations in Europe after Napoleon's Era... When Tsar Alexander I issued a Holy Alliance, Britain and France refused to join... Much of the Holy Alliance-that is, Austrian Empire, Prussia, and Imperial Russia... were very conservative because the nobles and absolute monarchy did not want to lose their power. France never had to worry about that since the leaders got the votes from the majority, and same goes to Britain. Germany caught up with liberalism when Bismarck came to power.
British Puritanism did not have a powerful influence over Britain's affairs. Of course, all nations had some conervatives... I mean, no nation was 100% liberal. I am talking in general. ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">
Join us. |
Posted By: Krum
Date Posted: 25-Jan-2007 at 12:38
You are completely right.The arrival of the ottoman turks halted the balkan development with centuries,especially when the balkans were the craddle of civilization.Byzantine culture is the most remarkable medieval culture in Europe and i am proud that Bulgaria became an orthodox country.May be we lost our independence but we kept our religion pure and sacred,while the western countries did horrible things that are shame for christianity.Tell me how many european countries can proudly say that they use their own alphabet.On the balkans we have two.Another important thing is that under the reign of Tsar Ivan Alexander(1331-1370) Bulgaria was in its second cultural Golden Age and has a magnificient development. Altough the dark centuries of the ottoman rule,Bulgaria was able to recover.For example before WW2 Bulgaria was one of the richest countries in Europe(one of the hihgest GDP per capita) and the richest country on the Balkans.It is a pity that communists came. ------------- It is only the dead who have seen the end of war. Plato |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 25-Jan-2007 at 13:00
Indeed. Another excellent example for this is Imperial Russia. Due to Mongolian invasion, Russians lost the contact with the Western Europe... and they followed traditional Mongolian culture, which was inferior to West's advance science, society, etc. Peter I tried to change this, but after the death of Catherine the Great... Russia lost the hope of rapid westernization. ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">
Join us. |