We are a single species.
Try to make a big deal out of minor differences like pigmentation has no basis in science.
There is something real obvious going on outside science.
Irrelevant to what I said.
Completely relevant. You may not see any different human races, but those races certainly see themselves.
California.
Personal attacks are not an argument.
Of course we are the same species. Different dog breeds are all dogs, but they also certainly have different characteristics. They're not immutable like with dogs, we do have free will, but it would be ignorant to deny those differences.
Okay. There's one in FL and we have a poster on DP who lives there, thus my question. It's a pretty red necky place.
Why is that a personal attack? You don't agree with the idea of a white ethnostate? Your posts certainly indicate that you do. Can't you own your views?
We don't breed people like dogs.
The differences are cultural, racism is an illusion.
There's no magic here, you treat people badly, and surprise, surprise, surprise...
Arcadia, CA has been described as the Asian Beverly Hills. Before recently, it was just another mostly white suburb.
My own views are no forced expulsions of citizens, deportations of all illegals, no immigration at least until wages start rising, employment rates rise, and home prices are closer to 2x annual incomes.
My views are closer to ethnonationalism than liberal democracy, to be sure, but that doesn't mean that I necessarily would favor a white ethnostate. For instance, an atheistic ethnostate would certainly be against my interests. I'd rather have a cohesive, religious culture, and yes, that can include different races as long as the culture is maintained. Religion>race.
And you think I make nothing of cultural differences? That's essentially all that I talk about on this forum.
Ask all the Mexicans who cheered on their World Cup victory over Germany yesterday whether they have a common identity.
Rome survived for hundreds of years as a republic before it became a grand empire.
Of course governmental instability contributed, but being a large empire spanning diverse cultures contributes to that governmental instability.
Weird, because that Eastern Roman Empire did quite well for itself despite also having adopted Christianity as the official state religion.
Research can fine tune people's ancestries even further than just a general region. Like I said before, in some instances they can even trace which particular neighborhood of London your ancestors may may have been from. The science is that good. But that doesn't make people from that neighborhood a different race or subspecies.
LOL. It's funny to read how confident you sound on this. The research is not at all clear on this. The fact that you are so eager to believe this just betrays your will to believe.
So yes, there is no question "race" exists. But only because we create it.
And reached it's zenith as an Empire. You shouldn't be knocking Rome's multiculturalism, you should be arguing that we should emulate it. Rome succeeded because of how effectively it incorporate the cultures and peoples of those it conquered. The grandsons of the Gauls that fought Julius at Alesia served as Centurions, Senators, and Legates. Rome survived, and indeed thrived, for centuries despite being composed of Latins, Italians, Greeks, Thracians, Dacians, Illyrians, Gauls, Iberians, Africans, Egyptians, Syrians, and Anatolians.
Now of course, it must be understood that the Roman views on culture, race, and ethnicity were far different from our own, and must be considered when comparing Rome to any other modern state.
The rise of Christianity and the Crisis of the Third Century, an economic disaster, contributed far more to the collapse of the Roman Empire than having too many different cultures.
~ involuntary "multiculturalism" (migrations and invasions) gained ascendancy.
~ being a large empire spanning diverse cultures contributes to that governmental instability.
You should have said don't knock Rome's style of acculturation. Once territory was conquered and decades of rebellions crushed, the process of acculturation (Romanization) began. Temples, housing, gladiatorial bouts, housing, bathing, Latin, togas, etc. transformed the provenances (so much so, all romance languages are rooted in Latin). Tribal elites children received a Roman education, and acculturation held, until involuntary "multiculturalism" (migrations and invasions) gained ascendancy.
LOL, the stupidest comment on the interwebz today. Multiculturalism defined partially as an invasion is not multiculturalism. Ghenghis Khan could not be described as a multiculturalist except in the most warped of imaginations.
Rome's huge empire survived from at least 27B.C to around 470A.D. - longer than many other empires and that was because of it's integration of a range of cultures.
The mass migrations were a result of the Empire already weakening, not a cause of it.
So instead of dealing with the issue, you're just going to go the nihilistic route and pretend that we don't both know exactly what white is. Your dodging of the issue speaks volumes.
Sent from my HTC6545LVW using Tapatalk
So instead of dealing with the issue, you're just going to go the nihilistic route and pretend that we don't both know exactly what white is.
Resist being obtuse.
~ Yep, multiculturalism, isn't it great or what?
And reached it's zenith as an Empire. You shouldn't be knocking Rome's multiculturalism, you should be arguing that we should emulate it. Rome succeeded because of how effectively it incorporate the cultures and peoples of those it conquered. The grandsons of the Gauls that fought Julius at Alesia served as Centurions, Senators, and Legates. Rome survived, and indeed thrived, for centuries despite being composed of Latins, Italians, Greeks, Thracians, Dacians, Illyrians, Gauls, Iberians, Africans, Egyptians, Syrians, and Anatolians.
The rise of Christianity and the Crisis of the Third Century, an economic disaster, contributed far more to the collapse of the Roman Empire than having too many different cultures.
Rome's huge empire survived from at least 27B.C to around 470A.D. - longer than many other empires and that was because of it's integration of a range of cultures.
Odd, because there's plenty of revolt and instability in the government that you're not bringing up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_civil_wars_and_revolts
In what way does that list invalidate how long the Roman Empire lasted or that it successfully utilised a vast range of different tribes and peoples into becoming citizens, leaders or even emperors of Rome?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?