The Taboo Roots Of Imperial Collapse

[M. Porcius Cato]

IQ testing tells us very little that commnon sense does not.

I completely disagree. For one, people vastly over-estimate their own intelligence and also under-estimate the intelligence of those who are more so. Further, the interesting diagnostic data (for example, in distinguishing a mere dyslexic from a kid who's not smart) that comes from IQ tests doesn't come from the total score but the relation among the subcomponents. I doubt common sense (if there is such a thing) has the precision necessary to identify, store, compare, and extrapolate the information needed to make these diagnoses. A number of kids are quite smart, but they have a couple of small problems that are magnified out of proportion to reality by insensitive teachers relying on "common sense".

 

I hasten to add, however, that (as Andrew pointed out) any measure (however valid) can be misapplied. I would also add that IQ tests have a long history, and some of the early ones weren't very reliable.

 

In any case, I opened a can of off-topic worms. Perhaps we can agree that racism pre-dates IQ tests and that if IQ tests were abolished, racism would remain?

Edited June 22, 2006 by M. Porcius Cato

[Furius Venator]

In any case, I opened a can of off-topic worms. Perhaps we can agree that racism pre-dates IQ tests and that if IQ tests were abolished, racism would remain?

 

Most certainly.

[caldrail]

For some reason, I've noticed that people interested in history who come to post here have a heavy fascination and interest in ethnic/racial breeding stock and lineage. Kind of like looking for some uncovered 'dirty truth' about a culture or people.

 

The trouble is that today we've gotten very sensitive about racial concerns (understandably) but I'd say that looking for a truth is probably correct. Whether its dirty or not depends on your personal views. Racial stereotyping is dodgy business, yet time and again we see the same characteristics from people of various regions or stock. Now that doesn't mean its something to sneer at - all human beings are fundamentally the same despite their quirks - but people foreign to you are going to have different backgrounds, opinions, and experience. If you introduce them into your society, they tend to seek the company of like-minded people. This is true today and was true then. Rome had ghettoes - 'Little Greece' for instance. There's nothing wrong with charting racial origins and culture so long as you don't start excluding others for their differences. Discuss and be damned I say.

[M. Porcius Cato]

The trouble is that today we've gotten very sensitive about racial concerns (understandably) but I'd say that looking for a truth is probably correct.

I agree that we shouldn't let political correctness stand in the way of historical correctness, but when the same view is shown to be historically incorrect again and again, it makes you wonder if the attraction to the theory isn't based on some extrinsic desire.

 

time and again we see the same characteristics from people of various regions or stock. [...] There's nothing wrong with charting racial origins and culture so long as you don't start excluding others for their differences.

 

Fine, trace populations over time and look at whether these populations change the cultures to which they migrate. Look at the Germans as one example. The Germanic migrations of the late empire often wrought devastation and a massive decline in material comforts. This decline largely occurred because these migrations and settlements were not peaceful: they disrupted trade networks, devastated demand for specialized industries (e.g., pottery, tile roofs, etc), and in their wake lowered productivity to levels that had not been seen in the Roman world for nearly 1000 years. Notice that in this case, racial orgins tells us almost nothing--other groups with different racial origins (e.g., the Huns) had identical effects. Thus, the historically interesting aspect of the Germanic migrations had very little to do with the German 'stock' and very much to do with WHAT THEY DID when they migrated.

Edited June 24, 2006 by M. Porcius Cato

[caldrail]

The emphasis should be on culture, not colour.

[Lex]

Dailymail

 

Here's an article where a British Admiral compares the decline of Britain and Europe to what happened to the Roman Empire, namely mass migration of foreign peoples/races.

Edited July 22, 2010 by Lex

[Gaius Octavius]

The mass migrations of Germans, Italians, Jews, etc., to the U.S. in the 19th and 20th centuries served to help make the country greater than it ever was. Fermi, Einstein, and of course Anheuser & Busch.

Might be something else.

[Lex]

The mass migrations of Germans, Italians, Jews, etc., to the U.S. in the 19th and 20th centuries served to help make the country greater than it ever was. Fermi, Einstein, and of course Anheuser & Busch.

Might be something else.

 

True, but they aren't 'foreign races', they're all white. The article is refering to the influx of Arabs/Moslems, Indians, Pakistanis and blacks in Europe and Britain. Groups of people who don't share our common heritage. (Judeo-Christian or Greco-Roman)

With regards to America I would be refering to the influx of Hispanic peoples.

Edited June 27, 2006 by Lex

[Gaius Octavius]

The mass migrations of Germans, Italians, Jews, etc., to the U.S. in the 19th and 20th centuries served to help make the country greater than it ever was. Fermi, Einstein, and of course Anheuser & Busch.

Might be something else.

 

True, but they aren't 'foreign races', they're all white. The article is refering to the influx of Arabs/Moslems, Indians, Pakistanis and blacks in Europe and Britain. Groups of people who don't share our common heritage. (Judeo-Christian or Greco-Roman)

With regards to America I would be refering to the influx of Hispanic peoples.

 

I take it that you make reference to the likes of George Washington Carver, Sen. Inouye, Pena and the Navajo 'Wind Talkers' of WWII note?

[PerfectimusPrime]

Dailymail

 

Here's an article where a British Admiral compares the decline of Britain and Europe to what happened to the Roman Empire, namely mass migration of foreign peoples/races.

 

I believe that History is cyclical and always repeats itself.

 

 

Wow... an admiral...

 

 

 

Its the same bs you can read in stormfront. One of the most ridicolous claim what he's making is AFRICAN PIRATES ON MEDITERRANEAN! hah!

 

He is an admiral for God's sakes! All the shores of mediterranean are guarded by relativly peaceful states. Algeria, Egypt, Morrocco ETC. They would put an stop to such activity with military force if necessary, if they would not. Little preassure from Europe, their law enforcement and military would be on it. European navies are some of the most advanced on earth, what the hell do you think a pirate boat could do when facing a destroyer with all the modern devices?

 

First of all, the tribes that migrated to Rome were often a small part of the tribe they originated from. They were armies that took practically over the corrupted Roman system. Rome was not flooded with migrants from the steppes and germania, large groups of migrating people who were armed, more capable of combat than avarage Roman, could subjucate the civilized population when the legions were no longer able to keep them back. To be realistic, Rome's major malfunction was in its government, and in the system of the economy.

 

When Rome was no longer capable of protecting its trade, the cities lacked trade. And when cities lacked trade, they quickly decrease and cease to exist. With no food or money in the cities, the people moved away from cities to the country side, to self-suffiecent villas. Thus European feudalism was born. Germanics merely took over the Roman system that was already established, replaced the existing Roman high-class with another. Population movement was not that immense. Therefore the situation is hardly comparable with his theory. IMO.

 

 

Its the same bs you can read in stormfront.

Edited June 27, 2006 by PerfectimusPrime

[Lex]

I take it that you make reference to the likes of George Washington Carver, Sen. Inouye, Pena and the Navajo 'Wind Talkers' of WWII note?

 

No, because I'm actually refering to Europe and Britain. I'm not from the USA so I can't comment too much on what is happening there.

 

Population movement was not that immense. Therefore the situation is hardly comparable with his theory. IMO.

So then which groups ruled Gaul, Spain, northern Italy, Sicily and North Africa when the Western Roman Empire fell or was collapsing?

 

All the shores of mediterranean are guarded by relativly peaceful states. Algeria, Egypt, Morrocco ETC

All of which are surprisingly incompetent when it comes to preventing boat loads of refugees from entering Europe. Let's not mention Libya....Italy has to deport thousands upon thousands of them even after continually telling their government to take greater steps in policing their waters. Who pays for those who are granted assylum status? What about Spain? Morrocco is not doing a good job preventing illegal immigrants from leaving their waters into Spanish waters.

 

Wow... an admiral...

Really?

 

Its the same bs you can read in stormfront. One of the most ridicolous claim what he's making is AFRICAN PIRATES ON MEDITERRANEAN! hah!

 

He is an admiral for God's sakes! All the shores of mediterranean are guarded by relativly peaceful states. Algeria, Egypt, Morrocco ETC. They would put an stop to such activity with military force if necessary, if they would not. Little preassure from Europe, their law enforcement and military would be on it. European navies are some of the most advanced on earth, what the hell do you think a pirate boat could do when facing a destroyer with all the modern devices?

Yes, you're right, I'm sure you know more about the topic than an Admiral of the British Navy.

 

 

Its the same bs you can read in stormfront.

Is that so? I was trying to have a proper discussion on the issue but I guess you're entitled to your opinion even though it's not productive for a proper debate.

Edited June 28, 2006 by Lex

[Gaius Octavius]

Lex:

 

Let's be honest here, we are speaking of Moslems in general and Black ones in particular. Using the Roman Empire as a parallel is false reasoning, even if what you hold is/was so. As you can and will see on many threads here, the reasons are myriad for the Fall. I become highly aggitated when some of these people commit the atrocious crimes that they sometimes do, and want the wrath of God to fall on their heads. As the crow flies, I live about a mile and a half from the WTC and watched it crumble. Three members of my family escaped falling buildings.

 

In Europe, it was the need for labor that drew the initial migrations. Most simply want a better life. Some refuse to assimilate. In the U.S. there was a home grown terrorist who blew up a building in Oklahoma a few years ago. What was to be done with his kind?

 

I think that what most are saying on this thread, is that we must face reality and make the best we can of the situation without painting all with the same brush. Have you ever had the pleasure of experiencing discrimination?

 

Dixi

Edited June 28, 2006 by Gaius Octavius

[Kosmo]

We discussed in here many times that romans had no ideea about racism, but valued some ethnicities a little more then others.

As long there is no prove to major racial migrations during the empire I think that we can not discuss the effects of this.

First which were the racial groups in the empire?

Regarding language: The entire Europe, the largest part of the empire, was indo-european. Africa was hamitic with small indo-european groups (Cyrene, Alexandria, Cartage, etc.) In Asia Anatolia was indo-european while Syria was semitic.

So, Africa and Syria changed the racial balance of the empire and that led to a fall?

 

To my surprise when I saw a large group of palestinian christians from Nazareth I realized that most had blue eyes and some of them blond and red hair. Who where their ancestors? Hatti? Mittani? Persians? Greeks? Romans?

 

What does this tell us? Nothing! Language it's a cultural factor and race can be determined only thru antrophometric measurement.

Unfortunetly race was hardly a subject for science, but for wild theories.

Some made race the most important characteristic of a human while other deny her existence or importance.

As long it will be a political issue and not a scientific one we will see no answers.

 

The today conflict between the european majority and the muslim minority it's racial or cultural ?

[Gaius Octavius]

To my surprise when I saw a large group of palestinian christians from Nazareth I realized that most had blue eyes and some of them blond and red hair. Who where their ancestors? Hatti? Mittani? Persians? Greeks? Romans?

 

They may be tthe descendents of the Celts (Gauls) of Galatea.

[Pantagathus]

To my surprise when I saw a large group of palestinian christians from Nazareth I realized that most had blue eyes and some of them blond and red hair. Who where their ancestors? Hatti? Mittani? Persians? Greeks? Romans?

They may be tthe descendents of the Celts (Gauls) of Galatea.

 

Hold overs from the Crusades?