Is our racism uniquely Anglo-Saxon?

I occasionally frequent used book stores to see what treasures I can find.  You won’t find any of the classics in such a shop, because they go to the high-priced houses.  But occasionally you might find an out-of-date work, or one that just didn’t hit the best seller lists.

Such a book I recently found in a small store in Northern Sonoma County.  It’s by Antrhopoligist Theodora Kroeber, called ISHI in Two Worlds: A Biography of the Last Wild Indian in North America (Univ. of California Press, 1961).  

In August 1911, a male stone aged Yahi Indian was found hovering in the corner of a corral, dogs barking at him, near the town of Oroville, California.  It turns out he was the last surviving member of the greater Yana group, and had been living all alone in the Sierra Nevada foothills until, in desperation, he had come down and surrendered to the white man.  Fascinating stuff…I give you the cite in case you want to look it up.  https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=Ishi+in+Two+Worlds+A+Biography+of+the+Last+Wild+Indian+in+North+America&stick=H4sIAAAAAAAAAONgFuLSz9U3MMorN8uxVOLVT9c3NEwyzTU0zjI20xLLTrbST8rPzwYTVsWZKanliZXFqxgl06ySi1ITS_KLrMrzi7KLrUBmGFaWVWUBAHnNwKxRAAAA

Ms. Kroemer was the wife of famous Berkeley anthropologist Alfred Louis Kroeber, who took in Ishi to live in a home he arranged on the university grounds at Berkeley.  Together they befriended Ishi and had the great privilege of learning about the life of the peaceful natives Americans who inhabited the coastal regions of the United States.

However, as impressive as Alfred Krober was, I am most impressed with the curiosity and investigative insights of Ms. Krober.  Her notes and impressions are from circa 1911 to 1920, derived from the view of the native-American whom she befriended.

A little California: this was land that was original invaded by the Spanish, coming as they did up from the larger cities of Mexico.  The original of them were Spanish Christian missionaries, who built the now-famous chain of missions as far north as Sonoma, California.  Ishi’s country was about 100-miles north of Sonoma.  A quick check of Wiki informs: “After the Portolà expedition of 1769–70, Spanish missionaries began setting up 21 California Missions on or near the coast of Alta (Upper) California, beginning in San Diego.”  Mexico took over from the Spanish in 1821.  The Spanish-Mexican period ended in California with “the Mexican–American War (1846–48) [which] led to the territorial cession of the extensive northern borderlands, one-third of its territory, to the United States.  After Ibero-Americans (Spanish & Mexican)the dominate power over these poor Indians was Anglo-American.

I was particularly impressed with Ms. Kroeber’s contrasting of the Ibero-American attitudes with the attitudes of the Anglo-Americans.  She writes of the Spanish and Mexicans”

Theodora Kroeber wrote:However cruel or culture-bound were many of those who peopled the land, they were nonetheless responsible officers answerable to authority, every one.  Also, they were Medi  terrian in their racial outlook.  This meant that intermarriage with indigenes and the emergence of the mestizo were regarded as natural results of conquest.

She then proceeds to contrast the Anglo-Saxon:

Theodora Kroeber wrote:The Anglo-Saxons, by contrast, reversed the ratio of whites to Indian, coming in inundating numbers—there were as many as a hundred thousand of them in a single year.  They lacked any formal church control and, during all the fateful years for Indian survival, were without adequate state or military restraints. So that both the excesses and cruelties and crimes, and the efforts to bring them under some sort of surveillance and control, were pretty much up to the frontiersmen themselves.  Anglo-Saxons tended to racism then as now.  A person with a skin color different from their own was thought to be intellectually and morally inferior; marriage with him was an antisocial act, sometimes legally forbidden; whatever the source for a sense of wonder and sacredness, if non-Christian, it was considered to be superstition and to be reprehensible.  The early Anglo-Saxon emigrants were of two sorts: one, moral, ethical, and law-abiding, even if the laws were of local manufacture; the other, made up of the floaters, the irregulars, the failures at home, in revolt against the old customary home behavior patterns, and contemptuous of restrictions attempted on the spot by their soberer companions.  Among the second group were also the outrightly criminal.  Both sorts were in agreement, however, that the Indian was an inferior, and both used him as indentured laborer, slave, or concubine, and deprived him of life as well as freedom if he threatened to be in any way troublesome.  White men who married Indian women were regarded with contempt.  Half-breeds, especially the unhappy spawn of concubinage and rape, were classed as “natives,” with all the disadvantages implicit in that special and by white definition second-class category.

These passages say so much more about the overlords, than about the Indian.  A skilled anthropologist, ostensibly studying the culture of a stone-aged subject, is coincidentally also applying her expertise to us.  It struck me that it could as easily describe the Anglo attitude toward the African native...and thence on to slavery.  To put the hypothesis succinctly: Anglos seem to have a superiority problem with other races and ethnicities.  Whether American, Australian or South African, people whose original derivation is that small group of islands off the west coast of Europe, known as the United Kingdom, have an almost in-bred instinct toward racism.

As Walt Kelly once exclaimed: We have met the enemy, and he is us!!

Since we so often discuss racial matters, I thought it would be relevant to hear other people’s views on this.  We often talk about the history of racism.  We certainly talk about the Civil War, southern attitudes about peonage, segregation and black lives matter…blacks in the ghettos and cops who routinely kill them.  Could the source of this malaise be Anglo-Saxonism itself?

Well as the first real racism was against the Jews and we have seen the worst intended genocide of a people that saw 6 million lives. Clearly renders her view void.

Plus the fact she is making a very racist view point that all Europeans are Anglo Saxon, who were a cultural and ethnic group from the Denmark and Northern German region.

All humans have the capacity to do right and wrong and in every society you find racism.

Articles like this actually make racism worse based off a racist reasoning, when biologically no races exists in humans, as its a social construct

Didge wrote:Well as the first real racism was against the Jews and we have seen the worst intended genocide of a people that saw 6 million lives. Clearly renders her view void.

Plus the fact she is making a very racist view point that all Europeans are Anglo Saxon, who were a cultural and ethnic group from the Denmark and Northern German region.

All humans have the capacity to do right and wrong and in every society you find racism.

Articles like this actually make racism worse based off a racist reasoning, when biologically no races exists in humans, as its a social construct

Perhaps you are right.  I tend to think that the issues with the Jews are intertwined with intellectual themes...at least for Christians.  Did the Jews kill Jesus?  Is that pertinent?  How does that work?

The argument of Dr. Kroeber, as parenthetical as it is, centers on skin-color and racial characteristics.  The argument seems to be a kind of noble savage thesis, more than an intellectual theme.

But I'm certainly willing to consider Anglo-Saxon issues with the Jews, as well.  Do, or did the Anglo-Saxon have as great a difficulty with the Jew as the Continental European?  After all, the UK opposed Germany over that issue, and fought in a vicious war to protect the Jew.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:Well as the first real racism was against the Jews and we have seen the worst intended genocide of a people that saw 6 million lives. Clearly renders her view void.

Plus the fact she is making a very racist view point that all Europeans are Anglo Saxon, who were a cultural and ethnic group from the Denmark and Northern German region.

All humans have the capacity to do right and wrong and in every society you find racism.

Articles like this actually make racism worse based off a racist reasoning, when biologically no races exists in humans, as its a social construct

Perhaps you are right.  I tend to think that the issues with the Jews are inter-entwined with intellectual themes...at least for Christians.  Did the Jews kill Jesus?  Is that pertinent?  How does that work?

The argument of Dr. Kroeber, as parenthetical as it is, centers on skin-color and racial characteristics.  The argument seems to be a kind of noble savage thesis, more than an intellectual theme.

But I'm certainly willing to consider that, as well.  Do, or did the Anglo-Saxon have as great a difficulty with the Jew as the Continental European?  After all, the UK opposed Germany over that issue, and fought in a viscous war to protect the Jew.

To me Quill she is making a racial argument on racism itself, rendering her view to be very problematic.
As if she is equating there is something genetic from being Anglo-Saxon would be to equate there is different races biologically, which we know this is not the case. Where she ignores that slaves have been kept in many cultures and societies due to how they view a group as inferior. 
Its a very poor thesis, that is the worst double standard, by making a racist claim itself, that Anglo-Saxons are racist, when its an ethnic and cultural group, just about the most progressive people in the world today.

Didge wrote:Well as the first real racism was against the Jews and we have seen the worst intended genocide of a people that saw 6 million lives. Clearly renders her view void.

Plus the fact she is making a very racist view point that all Europeans are Anglo Saxon, who were a cultural and ethnic group from the Denmark and Northern German region.

All humans have the capacity to do right and wrong and in every society you find racism.

Articles like this actually make racism worse based off a racist reasoning, when biologically no races exists in humans, as its a social construct

that is pretty Dumb since the Jews (Early Israeli) were known as one of the most Racist insular peoples in the region which is what bought them time and time again into the line of fire because the Ultra Racist assertion that they are a 'chosen peoples'.

Their Persecution of Philistines predates any persecution they had themselves. Even in Egyptian society they were terrorist threatening to kill first born etc. if they didn't receive preferential treatment as a racial group.
 
They are one of the peoples that created Racist Ultra Nationalism with concepts like 'chosen race' even the Romans are not as arrogantly racist in there assertion of divine provenance

and the answer to the OP is no

there is racsim in most nationalities to varying degrees.

it is the ultra violence of the Anglo-Saxon that has made theri racsim more apparent.

veya_victaous wrote:

Didge wrote:Well as the first real racism was against the Jews and we have seen the worst intended genocide of a people that saw 6 million lives. Clearly renders her view void.

Plus the fact she is making a very racist view point that all Europeans are Anglo Saxon, who were a cultural and ethnic group from the Denmark and Northern German region.

All humans have the capacity to do right and wrong and in every society you find racism.

Articles like this actually make racism worse based off a racist reasoning, when biologically no races exists in humans, as its a social construct

that is pretty Dumb since the Jews (Early Israeli) were known as one of the most Racist insular peoples in the region which is what bought them time and time again into the line of fire because the Ultra Racist assertion that they are a 'chosen peoples'.

Their Persecution of Philistines predates any persecution they had themselves. Even in Egyptian society they were terrorist threatening to kill first born etc. if they didn't receive preferential treatment as a racial group.
 
They are one of the peoples that created Racist Ultra Nationalism with concepts like 'chosen race' even the Romans are not as arrogantly racist in there assertion of divine provenance

1) No evidence of that, you just made that up. back this up by historical evidence of historical groups please?

2) There is no archaeological evidence of any persecution of the Philistines which means you believe every word of the bible, as that claim only comes from the bible.

3) The bible or Judaism makes no claim on race, but chosen by a mythical deity as deemed special, for their devotion to their deity, which is no different to any of the Abrahanic faiths, which only favours the believers

Also re-reading your post Veya, you seem to be making the case that its okay to persecute people based on a belief? That is a religious groups deems themselves, saved, special, chosen, then its okay to persecute them if of course they have in their history persecuted others which would include, Christians, hindu's, Muslims, Buddhists etc.
I mean why else bring up claims made within the bible as if to deny the fact the Jews have been one of the most persecuted people in history?

Didge wrote:Also re-reading your post Veya, you seem to be making the case that its okay to persecute people based on a belief? That is a religious groups deems themselves, saved, special, chosen, then its okay to persecute them if of course they have in their history persecuted others which would include, Christians, hindu's, Muslims, Buddhists etc.
I mean why else bring up claims made within the bible as if to deny the fact the Jews have been one of the most persecuted people in history?

I am thinking that maybe it is okay to persecute Really Dumb people like those that believe in Chosen races and Abrahamic faiths. because of the idiocy they bring to existence the fact they prevent peace and prosperity


And definitely persecute those idiots that promote Zionism out of ignorance like yourself
 
Because Simply, Jews are not even close to the most persecuted people in history end they are tiny group that has never been persecuted enough to be wiped out.
As opposed to several large nations that are now extinct.


It is Disgusting to suggest that such as affluent group that is vastly over represented in both politics and economics is in any way persecuted or hard done by.
 
Suggesting that Jews that are a still around in far greater number that the ACTUAL persecuted races are even in the running for most persecuted is an Insult to those that ARE ACTUALLY PESECUTED to extinction.
IF Jews Were even close to the most persecuted there would be no Torah left no one would still know what it contained because it would have been completely removed hunted to oblivion Like British Druids, Dacia Druids, Gallic Druids Just to name a few within Europe. let alone native Americans and other new world peoples

veya_victaous wrote:

Didge wrote:Also re-reading your post Veya, you seem to be making the case that its okay to persecute people based on a belief? That is a religious groups deems themselves, saved, special, chosen, then its okay to persecute them if of course they have in their history persecuted others which would include, Christians, hindu's, Muslims, Buddhists etc.
I mean why else bring up claims made within the bible as if to deny the fact the Jews have been one of the most persecuted people in history?

I am thinking that maybe it is okay to persecute Really Dumb people like those that believe in Chosen races and Abrahamic faiths. because of the idiocy they bring to existence the fact they prevent peace and prosperity


And definitely persecute those idiots that promote Zionism out of ignorance like yourself
 
Because Simply, Jews are not even close to the most persecuted people in history end they are tiny group that has never been persecuted enough to be wiped out.
As opposed to several large nations that are now extinct.


It is Disgusting to suggest that such as affluent group that is vastly over represented in both politics and economics is in any way persecuted or hard done by.
 
Suggesting that Jews that are a still around in far greater number that the ACTUAL persecuted races are even in the running for most persecuted is an Insult to those that ARE ACTUALLY PESECUTED to extinction.
IF Jews Were even close to the most persecuted there would be no Torah left no one would still know what it contained because it would have been completely removed hunted to oblivion Like British Druids, Dacia Druids, Gallic Druids Just to name a few within Europe. let alone native Americans and other new world peoples

1) So you are making a view to persecute less intelligent people
wow instead of educating them, you wish to harm them, which then renders you being allowed to be persecuted based on a level of intelligence which is subjective.

2) So you back the persecution of mainly Jews, who want a historical homeland and are indigenous to the region





So by your belief any person with nationalist views you back the view to persecute them.
Hitler eat your heart out

The Jews have been close to extinction in the time of the Romans and in many counties their numbers have decreased from ethnic cleansing, countless times in history the most recent the expulsion of 800,000 by Muslim majority countries.

Your antisemitism is really flowing out in all colours Veya

The British druids were never wiped out, as is evident by the beliefs and pagans incorporated as saints into Christianity

Your arguments lack any historical evidence and you keep making the view its okay to persecute them, which is exactly what Hitler did


Go figure

veya_victaous wrote:and the answer to the OP is no

there is racsim in most nationalities to varying degrees.

it is the ultra violence of the Anglo-Saxon that has made theri racsim more apparent.

I find myself agreeing with that actually

eddie wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:and the answer to the OP is no

there is racsim in most nationalities to varying degrees.

it is the ultra violence of the Anglo-Saxon that has made theri racsim more apparent.

I find myself agreeing with that actually

One part is in error

The violence was often recorded by Europeans more than it has been in other nations

The second error is basing this as only to Anglo-Saxon an ethnic group very distinct from many other European ethnic groups

My history knowledge is dire so I'll have to accept that's true lol

Didge wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

Didge wrote:Also re-reading your post Veya, you seem to be making the case that its okay to persecute people based on a belief? That is a religious groups deems themselves, saved, special, chosen, then its okay to persecute them if of course they have in their history persecuted others which would include, Christians, hindu's, Muslims, Buddhists etc.
I mean why else bring up claims made within the bible as if to deny the fact the Jews have been one of the most persecuted people in history?

I am thinking that maybe it is okay to persecute Really Dumb people like those that believe in Chosen races and Abrahamic faiths. because of the idiocy they bring to existence the fact they prevent peace and prosperity


And definitely persecute those idiots that promote Zionism out of ignorance like yourself
 
Because Simply, Jews are not even close to the most persecuted people in history end they are tiny group that has never been persecuted enough to be wiped out.
As opposed to several large nations that are now extinct.


It is Disgusting to suggest that such as affluent group that is vastly over represented in both politics and economics is in any way persecuted or hard done by.
 
Suggesting that Jews that are a still around in far greater number that the ACTUAL persecuted races are even in the running for most persecuted is an Insult to those that ARE ACTUALLY PESECUTED to extinction.
IF Jews Were even close to the most persecuted there would be no Torah left no one would still know what it contained because it would have been completely removed hunted to oblivion Like British Druids, Dacia Druids, Gallic Druids Just to name a few within Europe. let alone native Americans and other new world peoples

1) So you are making a view to persecute less intelligent people
wow instead of educating them, you wish to harm them, which then renders you being allowed to be persecuted based on a level of intelligence which is subjective.

2) So you back the persecution of mainly Jews, who want a historical homeland and are indigenous to the region





So by your belief any person with nationalist views you back the view to persecute them.
Hitler eat your heart out

The Jews have been close to extinction in the time of the Romans and in many counties their numbers have decreased from ethnic cleansing, countless times in history the most recent the expulsion of 800,000 by Muslim majority countries.

Your antisemitism is really flowing out in all colours Veya

The British druids were never wiped out, as is evident by the beliefs and pagans incorporated as saints into Christianity

Your arguments lack any historical evidence and you keep making the view its okay to persecute them, which is exactly what Hitler did


Go figure

LOL
 
only A Zionist would claim that Jews have a claim to Israel but the Welsh Should not be give Back ALL of England that they lost 400 years AFTER Jews were expelled from Israel originally.
The Jewish Claim to the land of Israel are EQUAL, no greater, than the claims of the Welsh to London. Unless you think that Jews are some special chosen race that maintains rights to a land they were expelled indefinitely where the Welsh and everyone’s else’s claims are limited  
 
Historical evidence of all the people that have been displaced or destroyed since the Jews original persecution? are you really that dumb to ask that?

So again you cannot counter his points but make a hateful view to zionism.

Which is nothing more than wanting a historical home

wow

What on earth are you going on about Wales?

What land stolen from the wlesh 400 years ago?

If they want Independence and have a referendum to become independent, then good luck to them, they have that right

There has never been any Welsh in London accept as people who have left wales
Wales has never controlled the whole of England as well, please show me any historical map with wales that incorporates England?

Sorry one moment



The vast majority of the people of the British Isle's descend from people from the basque region in Spain, this includes , the Irish, the Welsh, the Scottish and English

You stated that groups of people hated the Jews based on them claiming to be the chosen people.
Again show historical evidence for the gibberish you just invented

Jews have continually live in what is now Israel for at least 3,000 years, as they were not all displaced and their genesis was in the land what is today Israel. The Arabs genesis was in the Arabian peninsular and were in many cases of the Palestinians recent migrant arrivals over the last 100 years from surrounding areas like Syria


Thank you Veya, for making me laugh, because its evident, you clearly do not know a great many things


Night

eddie wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:and the answer to the OP is no

there is racsim in most nationalities to varying degrees.

it is the ultra violence of the Anglo-Saxon that has made theri racsim more apparent.

I find myself agreeing with that actually

while he is right about the other europeans
the Anlgos Saxon were not the only ones but just the most successful in their execution of policies of Ultra violence toward the traditional populations, particlaurly after they defeated main rivals in ultra violence. (Spainish, French and Dutch)

The alternative Welsh word for the territory we call England today is Lloegr or Lloegyr ("Lloegr the lost land") in Welsh. Pronounce 'leuger'.

http://www.proto-english.org/o21.html

funny the Racist promoter of Anglo Centric Propaganda has so little knowledge About EVEYTHING.



the Welsh or more correctly the Celts that Originally inhabited the lands now called England.

Didge wrote:Well as the first real racism was against the Jews and we have seen the worst intended genocide of a people that saw 6 million lives. Clearly renders her view void.

......................................................

You're a fucking idiot.

Didge wrote:As if she is equating there is something genetic from being Anglo-Saxon would be to equate there is different races biologically, which we know this is not the case. Where she ignores that slaves have been kept in many cultures and societies due to how they view a group as inferior.

I didn't really mean to suggest a genetic origin of the Anglo-Saxon's propensity toward racism. I'm willing to concede that it could also be cultural.

I'm simply working backward from the observation of this anthropologist. She noted that the Ibero-American lacked the same superciliousness toward native peoples, yet the Spanish were practically neighbors to the English back at the homeland. Why is this kind of arrogance seem always to be associated with the Anglo-Saxon. I even believe that as astute an observer as Shakespeare noticed it, as he made it something of a theme in his play, The Tempest.

Oh well, it's a great book and I'm enjoying it immensely.

veya_victaous wrote:

The alternative Welsh word for the territory we call England today is Lloegr or Lloegyr ("Lloegr the lost land") in Welsh. Pronounce 'leuger'.

http://www.proto-english.org/o21.html

funny the Racist promoter of Anglo Centric Propaganda has so little knowledge About EVEYTHING.



the Welsh or more correctly the Celts that Originally inhabited the lands now called England.

   

We shows you know nothing about history or that the celts were not indigenous to the Isles, yet there cultures became dominant, the same with later the Romans and the Anglo-Saxons. I mean for example in Cornwall people sill speak Cornish

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornish_language

The Welsh, Irish and Scottish Gaelic is different from each other as well, a at the time of your invented map, Britain was made up of different British tribes not any one kingdom. To then equate the Celts were all Welsh is an insult to the Irish and Scottish as well and is completely bullshit of course

Well done for proving you know absolutely zero about this country

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:As if she is equating there is something genetic from being Anglo-Saxon would be to equate there is different races biologically, which we know this is not the case. Where she ignores that slaves have been kept in many cultures and societies due to how they view a group as inferior.

I didn't really mean to suggest a genetic origin of the Anglo-Saxon's propensity toward racism.  I'm willing to concede that it could also be cultural.

I'm simply working backward from the observation of this anthropologist.  She noted that the Ibero-American lacked the same superciliousness toward native peoples, yet the Spanish were practically neighbors to the English back at the homeland.  Why is this kind of arrogance seem always to be associated with the Anglo-Saxon.  I even believe that as astute an observer as Shakespeare noticed it, as he made it something of a theme in his play, The Tempest.

Oh well, it's a great book and I'm enjoying it immensely.

I would have to reads the book myself, but from what you have said so far it seems poor

Didge wrote:Well as the first real racism was against the Jews and we have seen the worst intended genocide of a people that saw 6 million lives. Clearly renders her view void.

Plus the fact she is making a very racist view point that all Europeans are Anglo Saxon, who were a cultural and ethnic group from the Denmark and Northern German region.

All humans have the capacity to do right and wrong and in every society you find racism.

Articles like this actually make racism worse based off a racist reasoning, when biologically no races exists in humans, as its a social construct

First racism from smarty pants big-heads think fire make them so great, not use club but fancy spear, think grunting not sophis ... sophis ... smart enough way talk.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Didge wrote:Well as the first real racism was against the Jews and we have seen the worst intended genocide of a people that saw 6 million lives. Clearly renders her view void.

Plus the fact she is making a very racist view point that all Europeans are Anglo Saxon, who were a cultural and ethnic group from the Denmark and Northern German region.

All humans have the capacity to do right and wrong and in every society you find racism.

Articles like this actually make racism worse based off a racist reasoning, when biologically no races exists in humans, as its a social construct

First racism from smarty pants big-heads think fire make them so great, not use club but fancy spear, think grunting not sophis ... sophis ... smart enough way talk.

Do they?

That is interesting, as I thought racists were people that think their group is uniquely superior to another group of humans, based on no scientific reasoning but an invented notion based around races, a social construct, not something biological in humans

Can you back up you garbled claim

Didge wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Didge wrote:Well as the first real racism was against the Jews and we have seen the worst intended genocide of a people that saw 6 million lives. Clearly renders her view void.

Plus the fact she is making a very racist view point that all Europeans are Anglo Saxon, who were a cultural and ethnic group from the Denmark and Northern German region.

All humans have the capacity to do right and wrong and in every society you find racism.

Articles like this actually make racism worse based off a racist reasoning, when biologically no races exists in humans, as its a social construct

First racism from smarty pants big-heads think fire make them so great, not use club but fancy spear, think grunting not sophis ... sophis ... smart enough way talk.

Do they?

That is interesting, as I thought racists were people that think their group is uniquely superior to another group of humans, based on no scientific reasoning but an invented notion based around races, a social construct, not something biological in humans

Can you back up you garbled claim

Y U no speak Neanderthal? That racist.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Didge wrote:

Do they?

That is interesting, as I thought racists were people that think their group is uniquely superior to another group of humans, based on no scientific reasoning but an invented notion based around races, a social construct, not something biological in humans

Can you back up you garbled claim

Y U no speak Neanderthal? That racist.

Well Neanderthals are extinct


Also

http://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/please-stop-using-neanderthal-as-an-insult-say-neanderthal-experts


Also there is no proof humans caused their extinction and they certainly interbred

veya_victaous wrote:

Didge wrote:Also re-reading your post Veya, you seem to be making the case that its okay to persecute people based on a belief? That is a religious groups deems themselves, saved, special, chosen, then its okay to persecute them if of course they have in their history persecuted others which would include, Christians, hindu's, Muslims, Buddhists etc.
I mean why else bring up claims made within the bible as if to deny the fact the Jews have been one of the most persecuted people in history?

I am thinking that maybe it is okay to persecute Really Dumb people like those that believe in Chosen races and Abrahamic faiths. because of the idiocy they bring to existence the fact they prevent peace and prosperity


And definitely persecute those idiots that promote Zionism out of ignorance like yourself
 
Because Simply, Jews are not even close to the most persecuted people in history end they are tiny group that has never been persecuted enough to be wiped out.
As opposed to several large nations that are now extinct.


It is Disgusting to suggest that such as affluent group that is vastly over represented in both politics and economics is in any way persecuted or hard done by.
 
Suggesting that Jews that are a still around in far greater number that the ACTUAL persecuted races are even in the running for most persecuted is an Insult to those that ARE ACTUALLY PESECUTED to extinction.
IF Jews Were even close to the most persecuted there would be no Torah left no one would still know what it contained because it would have been completely removed hunted to oblivion Like British Druids, Dacia Druids, Gallic Druids Just to name a few within Europe. let alone native Americans and other new world peoples

Do you think that Hitler was right to persecute Jews then? I thought you didn't approve of Nazis.

Furthermore, do you think it's fine to persecute people merely because they believe in God? That seems to be what you're suggesting.

Original Quill wrote:I occasionally frequent used book stores to see what treasures I can find.  You won’t find any of the classics in such a shop, because they go to the high-priced houses.  But occasionally you might find an out-of-date work, or one that just didn’t hit the best seller lists.

Such a book I recently found in a small store in Northern Sonoma County.  It’s by Antrhopoligist Theodora Kroeber, called ISHI in Two Worlds: A Biography of the Last Wild Indian in North America (Univ. of California Press, 1961).  
**edited for length of story line...

Theodora Kroeber wrote:However cruel or culture-bound were many of those who peopled the land, they were nonetheless responsible officers answerable to authority, every one.  Also, they were Medi  terrian in their racial outlook.  This meant that intermarriage with indigenes and the emergence of the mestizo were regarded as natural results of conquest.

She then proceeds to contrast the Anglo-Saxon:

Theodora Kroeber wrote:The Anglo-Saxons, by contrast, reversed the ratio of whites to Indian, coming in inundating numbers—there were as many as a hundred thousand of them in a single year.  They lacked any formal church control and, during all the fateful years for Indian survival, were without adequate state or military restraints. So that both the excesses and cruelties and crimes, and the efforts to bring them under some sort of surveillance and control, were pretty much up to the frontiersmen themselves.  Anglo-Saxons tended to racism then as now.  A person with a skin color different from their own was thought to be intellectually and morally inferior; marriage with him was an antisocial act, sometimes legally forbidden; whatever the source for a sense of wonder and sacredness, if non-Christian, it was considered to be superstition and to be reprehensible.  The early Anglo-Saxon emigrants were of two sorts: one, moral, ethical, and law-abiding, even if the laws were of local manufacture; the other, made up of the floaters, the irregulars, the failures at home, in revolt against the old customary home behavior patterns, and contemptuous of restrictions attempted on the spot by their soberer companions.  Among the second group were also the outrightly criminal.  Both sorts were in agreement, however, that the Indian was an inferior, and both used him as indentured laborer, slave, or concubine, and deprived him of life as well as freedom if he threatened to be in any way troublesome.  White men who married Indian women were regarded with contempt.  Half-breeds, especially the unhappy spawn of concubinage and rape, were classed as “natives,” with all the disadvantages implicit in that special and by white definition second-class category.

These passages say so much more about the overlords, than about the Indian.  A skilled anthropologist, ostensibly studying the culture of a stone-aged subject, is coincidentally also applying her expertise to us.  It struck me that it could as easily describe the Anglo attitude toward the African native...and thence on to slavery.  To put the hypothesis succinctly: Anglos seem to have a superiority problem with other races and ethnicities.  Whether American, Australian or South African, people whose original derivation is that small group of islands off the west coast of Europe, known as the United Kingdom, have an almost in-bred instinct toward racism.

As Walt Kelly once exclaimed: We have met the enemy, and he is us!!

Since we so often discuss racial matters, I thought it would be relevant to hear other people’s views on this.  We often talk about the history of racism.  We certainly talk about the Civil War, southern attitudes about peonage, segregation and black lives matter…blacks in the ghettos and cops who routinely kill them.  Could the source of this malaise be Anglo-Saxonism itself?

Interesting topic and yet again it gets derailed by the SOS that can't expand their thought processes to go beyond their regurgitated intense feelings about their POV about 'religious & racism/bigotry' that has been so well written/documented/movies made/and mass amount of info to grab at will.  

I found a book {now buried around here some where} that has the listed holistic/tried and well used Shaman practices for healing wounds/digestive problems/treating simple skin sores --- written by a rural doctor - transcribing what he was learning from the man plains Indians he come in contact with! 
I'll try to find that book; but it was fascinating how that rural doctor took such an interest in what the natives had been using for their healing procedures and it was only being passed down by hands on teaching and word of mouth. I purchased that book in a huge lot at an auction that a former doctor's family were having to settle his estate.  The printed date {if memory serves me} was late 1800's and there were only 20+ printed up---the original doctor had paid for his own printed volumes and he gave them to colleagues and friends.

I've been bitten by the 'lost languages' and how linguistics are trying to capture those unique tribal words and sounds so the youth of those specific tribes will have it to pass down to the following generations. Sadly so many of the remaining tribes have ignored this specific issue due to society restraints/stigma's/racism from the 'WHITIES' and the elders have passed away without ever having had anyone to speak their language too. 
And as much as we might know about the 'popular native Indians' {most often portrayed in our ignorant western move genre's; not much was ever written about so many of the smaller tribes that dotted this great country --- like the ones out west that lived a quiet existence and avoided the invasion of white man.

Aspca wrote:I've been bitten by the 'lost languages' and how linguistics are trying to capture those unique tribal words and sounds so the youth of those specific tribes will have it to pass down to the following generations. Sadly so many of the remaining tribes have ignored this specific issue due to society restraints/stigma's/racism from the 'WHITIES' and the elders have passed away without ever having had anyone to speak their language too.

I had to learn the importance of languages when I was preparing for my doctoral dissertation about early Scotland, England and France.  Even our own languages need to be re-learned every once in a while.

Etymology is fascinating because it teaches you not just substitute terms, one language to the next, but introduces you to whole new conceptual ways of viewing the world.  For example--a simply one--in informal English we don't attribute gender to nouns, but the Romance languages do: in Spanish articles, it's 'la' and 'el'; and in French the articles are its 'la' and 'le'.  Even the nouns have gender, as well: el camino and la casa.

The Yana Indians had a whole different language for speaking to women, as opposed to man-to-man.  No, I'm not talking about bar-talk and leaving out swear words, lol, but complete changes in word forms, usually the suffixes.

The children lived with the women for the first 4-5 years, after which the boys moved over into the men's tent.  There the boys learned not only the masculine skills, but the new (to them) language of the men.  

So the boys had practice in both languages, and the girls learned from listening and being spoken to.  In practice, women spoke only the feminine language, but the men switched from the masculine to the feminine when addressing a woman.

Apparently it's not uncommon around the world...called 'gender-specific' languages.