| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Americas versus the Old World
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Americas versus the Old World

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>
Author
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Sep 2009 at 19:15
Here is an interesting footnote on the island of St. Bartholomew and the Swedish slave trade in African negroes.
 
 
The Swedes did not declare the "slave trade" illegal until 1813, and it maintained slavery until 1847! In a way one may speak of "thralldom" from the Vikings all the way to the Bernadottes. Likewise, when speaking of economic conditions and institutionalized subservience, one must consider not only the consequences of serfdom but also indentured servitude. In this respect, one must yield before the English anti-slavery movement of the 18th century and notice its exceptional virtue before many common European attitudes on the subject, otherwise the history of the 19th century becomes relatively meaningless in terms of individual liberty. Similarly, one has to recognize that the institution of slavery had different social and legal characteristics as one went from region to region.
 
By the way, anyone ever heard of the Guadeloupe Fund?


Edited by drgonzaga - 01 Sep 2009 at 19:23
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Sep 2009 at 20:15

The Swedish colony of St Barthelemy, where most of Swedens slave trade took place, is not the most glorious in Swedish history. The island was obtained from the French by Swedish king Gustav III in 1784 and sold back to France in 1878.

It became a rather free harbour for slave traders from different countries (including Sweden) that could buy and sell slaves here (a part of the revenue went to the Swedish crown). Ships from different countries (including about ten Swedish ships) came to the island with slaves that exhanged owners there.

In 1813 slave trade were outlawed, in 1830 it became a capital punishment, in 1845 the parliament decided about the total abolishment of slavery, in 1846 to 1847 the slaves were bought free and in 1848 the process was summarized.

When the slave trade and slavery ended the profit from the island decreased and finally in 1878 it was sold back to the French.

Sweden ended slavery before US, Cuba or Brazil.

Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Sep 2009 at 05:04
Originally posted by Vorian Vorian wrote:

...
You do realise that you are being racist now right? Black people that live in the American continent have every right to be there as you.
 
 
Do you realize Europe had no right to do what it did to the Americas? The list is long: Genocide of natives, robbing of metals in large scale, introduction of alliens without permission (Europeans and also Blacks?
 
What more racist than that. A small continent that crown itself the ruler of the world and whose glory ended in a bloody disaster (WW II). And that today, after all that happens, pretends to be the capital of political correcness... That's hypocresy.Shocked
 
 
 
Back to Top
Styrbiorn View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 Aug 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 3608
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Styrbiorn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Sep 2009 at 08:44
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

In a way one may speak of "thralldom" from the Vikings all the way to the Bernadottes.

Not really, since slavery in Sweden was abolished in 1337 and has been ever since. The slave trade started in St Barts, acquired in 1784, was however so lucrative it went through the loop. Slavery was legal in Africa, was the reasoning, and therefore it would be perfectly fine to trade with slaves there, as long as they weren't brought to Sweden. About 10 shipments of slaves were made by the Swedes - the main income source of the colony was as a free trade slave harbour. Too lucrative to have some guts and apply Swedish law everywhere, I guess.

Quote
What more racist than that. A small continent that crown itself the ruler of the world and whose glory ended in a bloody disaster (WW II). And that today, after all that happens, pretends to be the capital of political correcness... That's hypocresy.Shocked
What the hell does that has to do with European posters here? It was your behaviour that was discussed. You reply by attacking dead people. LOL


Edited by Styrbiorn - 02 Sep 2009 at 08:53
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Sep 2009 at 09:35
"Europe" or "The Americas" are not to be compared with individuals - or political entities like states.
In that sense "Europe" did not invade Americas - and are not responsible for anything - no more than Antarctica or Eurasia. Kings and private companies from european territories, bussinessmen, criminals and all sorts of people did however a lot in those continents at the other side. No doubt their descendants today live on both sides of the Atlantic, but should often unknown ancestors really be so much a problem of consciousness?
Another thing: I have not heard so many reject every part of european heritage including entire socalled "western civilisation", language, culture, religion, even often families, etcetera.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Sep 2009 at 13:30
Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:

..In that sense "Europe" did not invade Americas - and are not responsible for anything -
 
ShockedShockedShocked...
The more amazing writing in Magic Realism I have ever read... I am really shocked ... Confused
 
Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:

..
Another thing: I have not heard so many reject every part of european heritage including entire socalled "western civilisation", language, culture, religion, even often families, etcetera.
 
Language is functional, nothing else. Religion is a personal choice; in the Americas there is a large bunch who is agnostic as well. Culture is local, not imported. Criollo (Country) culture is the root of the culture; the rest is utilitarian and imported culture. In the case of Hispanics, of course we have an Iberian heritage that is respected, particularly in music and literature, but most of the identity comes from the local land and not from abroad.
 
For instance, WW I and WW II were seen in Latin America as foreign events and madness that didn't concern us very much at all. The same attitude existed in the United States before it was forced to entered the world.
 
 
 
Back to Top
Styrbiorn View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 Aug 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 3608
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Styrbiorn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Sep 2009 at 13:56
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:

..In that sense "Europe" did not invade Americas - and are not responsible for anything -
 
ShockedShockedShocked...
The more amazing writing in Magic Realism I have ever read... I am really shocked ... Confused
 


A select few European nations invaded (say, five-ten out of a few hundred nations or somesuch), led by an even less minority. The vast majority of Europeans didn't have anything to do with it and were busy trying to make enough food to survive the winter. The ancestors of those who invaded now live in successor states of the invaders, which are called things as "Peru", "Chile", "USA", etc.  It's moronic to talk about "Europe" invading "America", and especially moronic is to apply that to today's Europe.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Sep 2009 at 14:29
Iberia+Britain+France.... Do you have a colective name for that region? Western Europe includes Germany
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Sep 2009 at 14:41
Pinguin writes as if the reason the Amerindians[1] didn't invade Europe was because they chose not to.
 
I don't see anything to suggest they treated other people they could reach any better or any worse than Europeans did.
 
[1] or whatever you want to call them.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Sep 2009 at 14:41
Criollo culture...that's a new one on me! The "culture" of the Americas as a whole is totally dependant upon the institutional and social foundations shaped by Europe and its vocabulary is entirely identical to that of Europe minus a few emendations resisting contemporary political correctness. So the way with all myths.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Sep 2009 at 14:55
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

...Balls.
And you don't even receive a warning?
 
Confused
 
In any case, do you deny Europe was in ruins during the late fourtees and early fiftiees?
Of ccourse I do. To say Europe was 'in ruins' during that period is nonsense, though of course there was plenty of bomb and shell damage to repair - providing one of the foundations of the prosperity of the period. I doubt that Western Europe at least was ever more prosperous than it was from the time of the Korean War onward to the 'sixties.
 
There was of course the usual post-war slump for a couple of years, but the worst effect of that was cured by the cold war and the short hot war in Korea. Moreover the general assumption of Keynesian, social democratic economic policies ensured that poverty was nowhere near as widespread as it was in the USA (thanks to the greate US gulf between rich and poor).
 
Some of that prosperity was undoubtedly due to US aid, as well as US spending on military purposes, and some of it was due to the demand for labour for post-war reconstruction, but to say that Europe in the 'fifties was 'in deep poverty' or 'in ruins' is simply showing ignorance of the situation there at the time. It was booming.
Quote
Are you saying that the German "Miracle" was balooney? Confused
No, it's evidence of what I'm saying. Germany moved into greater prosperity faster than most of Western Europe, but they all had their smaller 'miracles'.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 22 Jan 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 5076
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Sep 2009 at 14:57
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Pinguin writes as if the reason the Amerindians[1] didn't invade Europe was because they chose not to.
 
I don't see anything to suggest they treated other people they could reach any better or any worse than Europeans did.
 
[1] or whatever you want to call them.
 
Pinguin does not require logic.  He dwells in his own universe.
 
Maybe it is the diet of "balooney" sandwiches.
 
 


Edited by pikeshot1600 - 02 Sep 2009 at 14:59
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Sep 2009 at 15:04
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

...Balls.
And you don't even receive a warning?
 
Confused
 
 
It's not an insult. It's an expression of academic disparagement. The noblest of us all can come up with garbage sometimes.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Sep 2009 at 15:15
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

 As for the "German Miracle" one can only contemplate such by ignoring first the continued dismantling and control over German industry betweem 1947-1951, and the eventual emergence of the ECSE, which together with private American investment in Germany began the economic integration of Western Europe.

And so? That's not contradictory with the fact there was hunger in Germany at the time. At least, a German old man born at the time told that to me. Was he making that up?

Depends on what you mean by 'at that time'. Anyway if that's all your evidence, here's one English old man born well before that time who's telling you otherwise. 
 
There was hunger in Germany for a short period after April 1945 (and indeed shortly before). By the time of the Berlin airlift in 1947 though the only hunger was due to the blockade the Soviets had imposed and which the airlift broke.
 
Oddly the worst-off European country for food in 1945-50 was Britain, since it was most dependent on imports, but the idea that anyone was hungry, let alone starving, is ridiculous.


Edited by gcle2003 - 02 Sep 2009 at 15:16
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Sep 2009 at 15:24
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Pinguin writes as if the reason the Amerindians[1] didn't invade Europe was because they chose not to.
 
I don't see anything to suggest they treated other people they could reach any better or any worse than Europeans did.
...
 
Amerindians didn't invade Europe, but cousins of the Amerindians (in genetic terms) did. Namely, the Turks and the Mongols. Just compare the situations yourself... curious, isn`t?
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Sep 2009 at 15:24
Originally posted by Styrbiorn Styrbiorn wrote:

Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

In a way one may speak of "thralldom" from the Vikings all the way to the Bernadottes.

Not really, since slavery in Sweden was abolished in 1337 and has been ever since. The slave trade started in St Barts, acquired in 1784, was however so lucrative it went through the loop. Slavery was legal in Africa, was the reasoning, and therefore it would be perfectly fine to trade with slaves there, as long as they weren't brought to Sweden. About 10 shipments of slaves were made by the Swedes - the main income source of the colony was as a free trade slave harbour. Too lucrative to have some guts and apply Swedish law everywhere, I guess.

Quote
What more racist than that. A small continent that crown itself the ruler of the world and whose glory ended in a bloody disaster (WW II). And that today, after all that happens, pretends to be the capital of political correcness... That's hypocresy.Shocked
What the hell does that has to do with European posters here? It was your behaviour that was discussed. You reply by attacking dead people. LOL
 
A little sloppy here Styr! First, I am not the author of your last "quote" hence its inclusion below the earlier reference is confusing to the casual reader. Second, in making the declaration on St. Barthelemy as a singular exception, you forget the Swedish adventures on the Guinea coast in the 17th century as they sought their "place" under the African sun. One can posit the argument that "slavery" ended throughout Western Europe in the Middle Ages--not just Sweden--but rather than engage in an epistemological argument, the simple fact here is that Sweden no less than any other contemporary state in the early modern period did participate or sought participation in the profits of the slave trade. That their success was mediocre is another matter entirely. The actual aberration is the portrayal that the Swedes were some sort of virtuous paladins amidst a corrupt Europe!


Edited by drgonzaga - 02 Sep 2009 at 15:26
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Sep 2009 at 15:44
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

 As for the "German Miracle" one can only contemplate such by ignoring first the continued dismantling and control over German industry betweem 1947-1951, and the eventual emergence of the ECSE, which together with private American investment in Germany began the economic integration of Western Europe.

And so? That's not contradictory with the fact there was hunger in Germany at the time. At least, a German old man born at the time told that to me. Was he making that up?

Depends on what you mean by 'at that time'. Anyway if that's all your evidence, here's one English old man born well before that time who's telling you otherwise. 
 
There was hunger in Germany for a short period after April 1945 (and indeed shortly before). By the time of the Berlin airlift in 1947 though the only hunger was due to the blockade the Soviets had imposed and which the airlift broke.
 
Oddly the worst-off European country for food in 1945-50 was Britain, since it was most dependent on imports, but the idea that anyone was hungry, let alone starving, is ridiculous.
 
You are entirely correct, gcle and we will not have to get into the origins of Monty Python's perpetual iteration of SPAM! Besides "rationing" in many forms continued in the United States until 1946-1947 and although the dismantling of the OPA ended the political program, the introduction of alternatives (such as oleomargarine) actually obscured the need for formal controls over many major dietary staples in the years between 1947-1951.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Sep 2009 at 16:30
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Pinguin writes as if the reason the Amerindians[1] didn't invade Europe was because they chose not to.
 
I don't see anything to suggest they treated other people they could reach any better or any worse than Europeans did.
...
 
Amerindians didn't invade Europe, but cousins of the Amerindians (in genetic terms) did. Namely, the Turks and the Mongols. Just compare the situations yourself... curious, isn`t?
Ah, the famous extended family! Amerindians may of course be called "cousins" to turcs and mongols, as well as we all are relatives - probably originated in Africa "yesterday" - or rather perhaps 50 - 70 thousands years ago!
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Sep 2009 at 17:15
Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:

...Ah, the famous extended family! Amerindians may of course be called "cousins" to turcs and mongols, as well as we all are relatives - probably originated in Africa "yesterday" - or rather perhaps 50 - 70 thousands years ago!
 
Perhaps Negroids and Caucasians developed in Africa, but the Asian races evolved in Asia. And yes, that is a family of peoples, close genetically at least. And what a magnific group is that, which developed most civilizations the planet has known so far.
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Sep 2009 at 19:01
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:

...Ah, the famous extended family! Amerindians may of course be called "cousins" to turcs and mongols, as well as we all are relatives - probably originated in Africa "yesterday" - or rather perhaps 50 - 70 thousands years ago!
 
Perhaps Negroids and Caucasians developed in Africa, but the Asian races evolved in Asia. And yes, that is a family of peoples, close genetically at least. And what a magnific group is that, which developed most civilizations the planet has known so far.
There is little to support deverlopment of ancient civilisations in the americas were related to asian civilisations. since the northeast siberians are far away from China, Mongolia Central Asia or Japan, and the significant "founding" migrations took place long before any civilisation anywhere on earth. I do not know of any consensus about closer affinites between ancient american and other cultures, language, habits, though of course ultimately humankind has some common ancestors, who may have spoken some language, shared a certain way of living and thinking we know very little about. That turks, mongols and other central asians cultures or lifeforms should be particularly similar to North or South americans seems not convincing.
 
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Sep 2009 at 20:11
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

A little sloppy here Styr! First, I am not the author of your last "quote" hence its inclusion below the earlier reference is confusing to the casual reader. Second, in making the declaration on St. Barthelemy as a singular exception, you forget the Swedish adventures on the Guinea coast in the 17th century as they sought their "place" under the African sun. One can posit the argument that "slavery" ended throughout Western Europe in the Middle Ages--not just Sweden--but rather than engage in an epistemological argument, the simple fact here is that Sweden no less than any other contemporary state in the early modern period did participate or sought participation in the profits of the slave trade. That their success was mediocre is another matter entirely. The actual aberration is the portrayal that the Swedes were some sort of virtuous paladins amidst a corrupt Europe!


No historian in Sweden denies its involvment in the slave trade. Maybe the general public are not so very aware of it but such are the state in many countries that the general public are not always so knowledgeable in historical questions.

Sweden had a small colony in Cabo Corso in todays Ghana in the 17th century and as you said it was not so very succesful and finally it was taken by the dutch who later lost it to the English (as with New Sweden).

Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Sep 2009 at 20:16
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Perhaps Negroids and Caucasians developed in Africa, but the Asian races evolved in Asia. And yes, that is a family of peoples, close genetically at least. And what a magnific group is that, which developed most civilizations the planet has known so far.


You cannot define Africans, Asians and Caucasoids so easily. The differences are not so clear cut. Asians differ a lot from each other and some are more related to so called caucasoids, others are less related. Some are also more close to Africans. Asia is very large and there are a lot of different peoples there with different genetic makeups. So one cannot simplify it and just talk about Asians without specifying which Asian group one means.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Sep 2009 at 20:41

Europeans are closer to Africans than East and Central Asians, by far.

Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Sep 2009 at 21:35
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Europeans are closer to Africans than East and Central Asians, by far.



What Africans? Some say that Africans are more diverse and that Europeans and Asians are more close to each other than certain African groups are to each other and to the peoples in Europe and Asia.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Sep 2009 at 21:45

Obviously Europeans are closer to all Africans than the rest of mankind

Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Sep 2009 at 04:19
What in tarnation is that piece of scribbling? Or are you embarrassed to cite the source, Pinguin?
 
Let me help you, its the scientism of bioinformatics and the idiocy of phylogenetic trees! Are you now going to regale us with the mastery of the Q-matrix?
 
Make some sense of this, I dare youBig smile
 


Edited by drgonzaga - 03 Sep 2009 at 04:28
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Sep 2009 at 08:16
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Europeans are closer to Africans than East and Central Asians, by far.

Once again You are completely right - who am I to think otherwise! Of course You mean litterally, the distance between european and african side are not that great and I cannot deny You can see from the one to the other, if You are on either side of the strait of Gibraltar. By the same logic americans are extremely far from each other though. From a genetic,cultural and other point of view however, the differences between majority of people in Europe and in Africa are substantial.
I cannot help looking back at start of this thread and the remark about Americas "from pole to pole", showing me You are not so fond of discussing endless pitty -nitty details. Northen most land at Greenand about 83 North.The southernmost island offshore Southamerica at about 56 degree south. Millions of people live as close closer to one of the poles including me.
Back to Top
Dolphin View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
Teaman to the Society of Dilettanti

Joined: 06 Feb 2007
Location: Lindalino
Status: Offline
Points: 2766
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dolphin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Sep 2009 at 09:22
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

What in tarnation is that piece of scribbling? Or are you embarrassed to cite the source, Pinguin?
 
Let me help you, its the scientism of bioinformatics and the idiocy of phylogenetic trees! Are you now going to regale us with the mastery of the Q-matrix?
 
Make some sense of this, I dare youBig smile
 
 
"You are adding nothing but further incitement.... Sophomoric incitement."
Back to Top
Dolphin View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
Teaman to the Society of Dilettanti

Joined: 06 Feb 2007
Location: Lindalino
Status: Offline
Points: 2766
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dolphin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Sep 2009 at 09:30
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

What in tarnation is that piece of scribbling? Or are you embarrassed to cite the source, Pinguin?
 
Let me help you, its the scientism of bioinformatics and the idiocy of phylogenetic trees! Are you now going to regale us with the mastery of the Q-matrix?
 
Make some sense of this, I dare youBig smile
 
 
IN FACT: Be sophomoric all you want and see where it gets you. You have not addressed the topic and instead have intervened in several threads with your asinine nonsense directed at another person. You may think it cute, but it really only requires a singular observation: grow up!
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Sep 2009 at 14:03
Originally posted by Dolphin Dolphin wrote:

... 
IN FACT: Be sophomoric all you want and see where it gets you. You have not addressed the topic and instead have intervened in several threads with your asinine nonsense directed at another person. You may think it cute, but it really only requires a singular observation: grow up!
 
That's his style. He never contributes with anything, because there is nothing he could bring, but only tries to be funny...
 
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.297 seconds.