The population of India is what, like 10 times what it was before the Rajj?
*blinks*
Of course. Your argument makes utter sense.
I bow before your superior racism.
The population of India is what, like 10 times what it was before the Rajj?
A lot of White Nationalists don't accept Southern Europeans, period (Greeks never seem to fall into this category for some reason).
I guess the Liberal Media covers things up really fast.
*blinks*
Of course. Your argument makes utter sense.
I bow before your superior racism.
But that's all beside the point. I have nothing against the Turks. Unlike a certain other ethnic group that always goes around screeching "never again" and "we need to work that guilt", I don't go around guilt-mongering and hating on people and demanding their extermination as punishment for past crimes.
My Jewish roomate hasn't exterminated me yet. I guess he likes me. I hope he lets me hide in his house when the Reverse Holocaust happens!
If they didn't accept Greeks as white, they couldn't claim the Glorious Heritage of Classical Greece for the White Race.
Considering Albanians non-white makes them unable to claim the Glorious Heritage of John Belushi, Mother Theresa and Skanderbeg, but apparently this isn't such a big deal.
My Jewish roomate hasn't exterminated me yet. I guess he likes me. I hope he lets me hide in his house when the Reverse Holocaust happens!
The difference is that Roman (and to a lesser extent Hellenistic) identity weren't ethnically exclusive. So long as you followed the cultural norms you were pretty much assured of acceptance.
While Nationalism as we understand it was not around until after the revolutions that spread along the Atlantic, pseudo-nationalistic forces were in play since the first state. Ethnic, cultural, and social nationalism was around with the Greeks, especially in contrast to the Persians and Scythian. The Chinese had their social and philosophical nationalistic identity. It existed everywhere, and ensures the creation of a state. Even now states that are not based on ethnic nationalism are based on social nationalism, such as with the United States. Civic nationalism, for example.While nationalism developed gradually throughout the 18th century, I think it is certainly possible to say that it was really the French Revolution which caused nationalism to "explode," and be further exported to all parts of Europe, thus ushering in its massive presence in politics and society for the next two centuries.
And finally, do you personally think that the development of nationalism as a political and social force was overall a good or bad thing?
Depends on the form nationalism takes on. Even in war it can be good, but an excess of nationalism to the extend of bigotry against everything else is never good even if all the other countries are wretched due to ATL factors.
As our friend White Mom has just demonstrated.![]()
![]()
Trouble is, you're wrong. Blacks are far more likely to engage in criminal activity than whites, which is why whites had Jim Crow, to protect their women and children.
But egalitarians like you think that is immoral. You'd rather white children get slaughtered in the streets than respect white peoples' rights to live in peace and walk down the street without their toddlers getting their brains blown out.
Koreans should go back to their own country. Japan belongs to the Japanese.