Originally posted by Cythraul
Ahhh WalkingFox - we meet again . I hate to say it, but you've proven again your allegiance to Marxist-racism. This idea that there is no such thing
as an ethnic/cultural identity within Europe is a new concept instilled only by decades of Establishment indoctrination.
There is not AN
ethnic / cultural identity within Europe. There are over a hundred
distinct cultures, and at least eight "indigenous"
ethnicities. If you really think there's just one of each, I'm afraid it would be you who is subscribing to "marxist racism" - Since if you've ever
read Marx, you'd know he denied any such things as cultural or ethnic differences, with the argument that all workers are the same people.
But of course, people who bitch about Marx have generally never read his writing, out of fear that they might get "tainted" like it's the King In
Yellow or something.
Firstly, it'd help if we defined 'indigenous'. The normally-reliable Merriam-Webster gives a meaningless definition of: produced,
growing, living, or occurring naturally in a particular region or environment. Dictionary.com offers: originating in and characteristic of a
particular region or country, which I find more meaningful.
Alright. You're in for a hell of a ride if you want to talk about Europe with that sort of definition, then.
According to that understanding, a tribe that originates in a region is therefore indigenous to that region. There are no specifications about
an indigenous tribe being the first peoples to populate a piece of land. Accordingly, the Angles who settled and gave their name to Engla Land
(England) can not be defined as indigenous to England because their cultural and genetic peculiarities originated elsewhere in Denmark and Northern
Germany. But the flipside to that coin is that the Angles are indigenous to Denmark. The Welsh (and their Brythonic counterparts elsewhere in
Britain) are indigenous to Britain because their language, culture and genetic peculiarities are unique to, and developed in, Britain. I could
continue with several more examples but in the interest of concise posting I'll let imaginations fill in the blanks. The overall picture is of a
Europe consisting of both indigenous peoples and inter-migratory ones.
And depending on how far back you want to go, all the groups you just mentioned are indigenous to the area that is today Georgia / Russia / Armenia.
Further than that, and they're indigenous to Iran. It gets a little murky after that, but they're basically milling around Central Asia.
Two further important points:
- Inter-European migration of Caucasian tribes (whose culture is, at-source, similar - we simply need to look at the counterpart gods of the Roman,
Greek, Norse and Celtic pantheons to ascertain this) is a different ball-game to the inter-global migration that currently targets Europe
primarily for total-alteration.
"Caucasians" were in Europe way
before the Indo-European pantheons moved in. Which is why we have things like the Titans and Fomorians. Which
is why the Celts - among the first of the Indo-European migrants - had pantheons that ultimately looked nothing like those by later immigrants. Which
is why the head god of the Norse pantheon is not Indo-European (in fact a large chunk of those gods aren't!)
It's also worth mentioning that Europe wasn't the only place to receive this same culture - Persia and India share the same "pantheon package." And
then we have the case of the Hebrews, who abandoned their Egyptian pantheon in favor of worshipping the Indo-European thunder god.
- I'm being quite generous in conceding that the English are not indigenous to England. In-fitting with the dictionary.com definition of
'indigenous', the English are actually "originating in and characteristic of a particular region or country", for the English are not the same as the
Danish/German - not in terms of language, culture, law or even appearance. When the Angles settled England, they, along with the Saxons, Jutes,
Frisians and existing Celtic/Brythonic populations formed a new coherent English nation and people which has no likenesses elsewhere
Wow. That's some ahistorical kumbuya bullcrap right there. The invading Germanics didn't form anything with the Brythons, except for a lot of dead
people. It was a blood-spattered war of conquest, and the Celts had the misfortune of having just gotten done with a generation of warfare with the
Romans, and so lost, getting driven into the West and North.
The same cannot be said for most of the ghettoised immigrant communities in Europe.
This line only makes sense with your magical fantasy history where all the white people held hands and built a single culture and were awesome and are
now being oppressed by those naughty naughty mud people.
And I'm also interested in whatever evidence you have which suggests that Europe was ever settled by non-Caucasians? This is news to me.
Careful with your "evers" - Neandertals and the people that gave us the cro-magnon culture were certainly not white, or even caucasian (the Cro's
features are closer to those of modern Papuans, in fact). The Neolithic immigrants to southern Europe were also very unlikely to fall into that
particular category. And the Siberians who peopled Scandinavia-Finland prior to the Germanic immigration waves?
Also, caucasians? Well, I guess if we discount those three I just mentioned, the answer could fairly be never. After all, the Huns, Turks, Magyars,
Arabs, Avars, Phoenicians, Tatars, et al are all "caucasians." As they still are - and as are the Pakistanis and Indians who are immigrating to Europe
today (along with the Turks and Arabs who you probably had in mind when you were griping)
Did you mean "white people"?
edit on 6-12-2010 by TheWalkingFox because: tag correction
edit on 6-12-2010 by TheWalkingFox
because: More tag correction, derp derp