PDA

View Full Version : Which Of The Worlds Countries Have Never Been Conquered By Another Nation?



hangman
22-02-11, 20:04
On this topic I've learned Scotland, England, USA (as it was discovered not conquered) and Germany never have been conquered? What do you think? Kind regards.

Neander
22-02-11, 20:41
China,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Taranis
22-02-11, 20:45
China,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Mongols, Manchus?

Regarding Germany, it was clearly conquered 1945, 1918, 1806, and if you will, 1648, so in a nutshell, no. Same with England and Scotland.

Neander
22-02-11, 20:50
Mongols, Manchus?I dont know much about it, but as I remember they just atacked somtimes, and conquered a little piece of whole territory

Neander
22-02-11, 20:51
On this topic I've learned Scotland, England, USA (as it was discovered not conquered) and Germany never have been conquered? What do you think? Kind regards.
Scotland is just conwuered by England.

sparkey
22-02-11, 20:52
Where have you learned that? I think you have some reading to do... starting with England... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_conquest

Taranis
22-02-11, 20:54
I dont know much about it, but as I remember they just atacked somtimes, and conquered a little piece of whole territory

The Mongols conquered all of China in the 1270s, which may have resulted in as much as half of China's population at that point being killed, and established the Mongol-derived Yuan dynasty in the country, which was overthrown less than a century later by the Ming dynasty.

Later on, in the 1640s, the Manchus conquered Ming China and established the Qing dynasty, which ruled over China until the monarchy was abolished in 1912.

Sirius2b
22-02-11, 20:56
I think that the case of Brazil, Canada or Australia, for example, are the same as the USA. I could think of more examples, but I think it is not necessary.

Drac
22-02-11, 22:01
What do you think? Kind regards.

It depends on what you mean by "country". If you mean the modern political/geographic boundaries defining those countries, then maybe. If you mean the areas that today are those countries but at a time when such countries did not really exist, then no.


On this topic I've learned Scotland, England,

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/Roman_Britain_410.jpg



USA (as it was discovered not conquered)

The land that later became the United States was conquered from the native peoples by Spaniards, French and English.


and Germany never have been conquered?

http://www.attila.com/gfx/huns_conquer.jpg

Melusine
23-02-11, 02:37
How about when William Duke of Normandy (France) conquered England in 1066? Does this not count as a conquest , including most of what is now known as the UK.?


Melusine

LeBrok
23-02-11, 06:02
Only few very young countries were never conquered, like Canada, USA and Australia. Actually Canada and Australia constitutionally belong to GB. That means that only USA as independent nation was never conquered.

Mongolia was conquered by Russia, and dominated by Soviets.

One could make a point that Russia was never conquered either. History of proper Russia starts after unification of some Slavic tribes, after collapse of Tatar/Mongol domination in eastern Europe.

Antigone
23-02-11, 06:54
Canada, USA, Australia and New Zealand have all been conquered, it was us Europeans who did the deed. All these countries were inhabited originally.

England has been conquered a number of times, Celts, Romans, Anglos, Saxons, Jutes, Danes, Norse and finally the Normans. Scotland likewise, and they were finally conquered by the English after the battle of Culloden.

I think it will be difficult to find any country or land that has not been invaded at some time or other, not to mention that they'd be so very in-bred by now!

LeBrok
23-02-11, 08:01
[QUOTE=Antigone;366172]Canada, USA, Australia and New Zealand have all been conquered, it was us Europeans who did the deed. All these countries were inhabited originally.
QUOTE]

What are you talking about? These countries didn't exist till Europeans arrived. In other words, they have started these countries. Before this, there was just American continent with many native tribes on it. There was not even a name Australia or New Zealand, because aborigines called it something else. Different name, different people, different language, different culture, no continuity.

It is (almost) the same if you would say that the first conquest of France happened when Cesar defeated Galls.

hangman
23-02-11, 17:30
Only few very young countries were never conquered, like Canada, USA and Australia. Actually Canada and Australia constitutionally belong to GB. That means that only USA as independent nation was never conquered.

Mongolia was conquered by Russia, and dominated by Soviets.

One could make a point that Russia was never conquered either. History of proper Russia starts after unification of some Slavic tribes, after collapse of Tatar/Mongol domination in eastern Europe.

That's great...America is land that I Love. Bets regards LeBrook.

Antigone
23-02-11, 18:00
What are you talking about? These countries didn't exist till Europeans arrived. In other words, they have started these countries. Before this, there was just American continent with many native tribes on it.

Wow, there is the typical Eurocentric view, nothing existed until the big white man turned up to make it exist. I was wondering how long it would be before someone came up with it, you didn't disappoint.

Of course they all existed, not under the names that they currently have and under a different construct than we know today but they most certainly existed.

Perhaps you could try explaining to Australian aboriginals how they didn't exist for 40,000 years. No continuity indeed.

sparkey
23-02-11, 18:22
Wow, there is the typical Eurocentric view, nothing existed until the big white man turned up to make it exist. I was wondering how long it would be before someone came up with it, you didn't disappoint.

Of course they all existed, not under the names that they currently have and under a different construct than we know today but they most certainly existed.

Perhaps you could try explaining to Australian aboriginals how they didn't exist for 40,000 years. No continuity indeed.

Well, I think that the dispute here is a confusion of terms rather than Eurocentrism. For example, "North America" or "the land that would become the United States" has obviously been conquered. "The United States" has yet to be, unless you count pieces of it, like the former Commonwealth of the Philippines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippines_Campaign_%281941%E2%80%9342%29).

Antigone
23-02-11, 18:51
Well, I think that the dispute here is a confusion of terms rather than Eurocentrism. For example, "North America" or "the land that would become the United States" has obviously been conquered. "The United States" has yet to be, unless you count pieces of it, like the former Commonwealth of the Philippines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippines_Campaign_%281941%E2%80%9342%29).

You beat me to it Sparkey, I was just thinking along the same lines and was about to reply again. As the OP didn't specify modern history I was assuming he was taking all historical eras into consideration.

Although the fact that "what is now known" as England was invaded a few times in the distant past has been accepted and passed as an answer to the original question yet feathers fly over the suggestion that "what is now known" as the US has also been similarily invaded in the not so distant past. Why is that?

LeBrok
23-02-11, 18:59
Wow, there is the typical Eurocentric view, nothing existed until the big white man turned up to make it exist. I was wondering how long it would be before someone came up with it, you didn't disappoint.

Of course they all existed, not under the names that they currently have and under a different construct than we know today but they most certainly existed.

Perhaps you could try explaining to Australian aboriginals how they didn't exist for 40,000 years. No continuity indeed.

Before English came there was no country Australia (read the title of this thread again). There were just many tribes that spoke many languages. Continent (not country) Australia was never united by any of the tribes, therefore, one might say, that there were many smaller countries with different names, on this continent that we know now as Australia. Even if one of the tribes united it, the country would have a different name, different language, different culture, different people genetically, etc, it wasn't Australia.
Now the Europeans came, mostly British, conquered all the tribes and other European colonies, united the land under name of Australia. Australia as a country is very young and started around 1850.

Once again, there was no country Australia before 1850. There was a continent that we know as Australia, but there was no country of this name.

Antigone
23-02-11, 20:48
Before English came there was no country Australia (read the title of this thread again). There were just many tribes that spoke many languages. Continent (not country) Australia was never united by any of the tribes, therefore, one might say, that there were many smaller countries with different names, on this continent that we know now as Australia. Even if one of the tribes united it, the country would have a different name, different language, different culture, different people genetically, etc, it wasn't Australia.
Now the Europeans came, mostly British, conquered all the tribes and other European colonies, united the land under name of Australia. Australia as a country is very young and started around 1850.

Once again, there was no country Australia before 1850. There was a continent that we know as Australia, but there was no country of this name.

Yes I was born there and it wasn't officially Australia until 1901 but the name Australia had been used to refer to the land as early as the early 1800s. But all that is beside the point.

Perhaps you could tell me what name would be acceptable to refer to the lands that are now known as Australia and the USA etc before the modern political constructs? Is there even one in existance? Because it really doesn't matter whether I used the convenience of their modern names, nor does it matter how many tribes lived in either, nor whether or not they were united. The lands that are now known as Australia and USA etc were still conquered, it was because they were conquered that their modern identities were formed.

Now you may like to categorize your history, draw neat little lines and pretend your peoples existance didn't happen at the expense of anothers but I do not. I see continuity in it all.

I'd still like to know how it is acceptable to use the modern name of England when referring to invasions that happened when that island was just as un-united and tribal as the USA or Australia, but modern names are somehow not acceptable when referring to past invasions in certain other places?

LeBrok
24-02-11, 05:50
The lands that are now known as Australia and USA etc were still conquered, it was because they were conquered that their modern identities were formed.

You answered yourself. The thread was about conquered countries/nations and not about conquered lands or continents.

Maciamo
24-02-11, 09:54
All areas of the world have been conquered numerous times in history (or prehistory). If you mean modern states as they exist now, few have actually been conquered. For example, Germany as it exists now only came into existence at the reunification in 1990. It hasn't been conquered since then, but the territory itself has been invaded/conquered/occupied times and again. The last time was by Allied forces at the end of WWII and WWI. Before that, Prussia (over half of which lied in modern Poland) conquered and unified the various German kingdoms, duchies, principalities and counties. Napoleon conquered Germany in 1806. In the early Middle Age, most of Germany was conquered by the Franks (who were based around modern Belgium), and earlier still by the Huns. Let us not forget too that the south-west of Germany was annexed by Rome and approximately half of modern Germany was defeated and occupied by the Romans (as far as the Danish border). You can go back even further with the Celts and Germans invading the region in the Bronze Age.

The same kind of scenario holds for any place on Earth. Australia, the Pacific Islands and Japan were probably the least invaded/conquered places since humans first set foot there. Australia and the Pacific Islands were only colonised once by Europeans after their indigenous populations got there, and never since. Japan was progressively conquered by the Yayoi people starting 2500 years ago, and since then was only successfully occupied by a foreign power in 1945.

Vallicanus
24-02-11, 10:52
Romans and Normans both conquered England or the territory known today as England.

LeBrok
24-02-11, 18:49
If you mean modern states as they exist now, few have actually been conquered. For example, Germany as it exists now only came into existence at the reunification in 1990.

That's why I stayed with a broader concept of countries and nations as thread title suggested. As long as the culture, language and genetics of population doesn't change much we are talking about same country/nation.
Surely it's never a clean cut, and every situation is different, and could be argued about.

Wilhelm
24-02-11, 19:13
Spain has never been conquered.

Taranis
25-02-11, 01:35
Spain has never been conquered.

Depends on how you define "Spain", but in any case, the answer has to be "no":

- The Phoenicians conquered parts of the Iberian Penninsula.

- The Romans conquered the entire Iberian Penninsula.

- The Goths conquered the Iberian penninsula.

- The Umayyad Caliphate conquered the Iberian penninsula.

- The Almoravids conquered one by one the Taifa states in Muslim Iberia that emerged after the collapse of the Umayyad rule.

- The Alomhads conquered in turn Muslim Iberia from the Almoravids in the wake of their insurgency.

- The reconquista conquered most Muslim territories, with only the Emirate of Granada persisting into the 15th century.

- The French occupied Spain during the Napeolonic Wars.

- Even though this was technically a Spanish-internal thing, nationalist forces of Franco at the start of the Spanish civil war operated initially out of North Africa and orchestrated their campaign from there.

Drac
25-02-11, 07:50
Depends on how you define "Spain", but in any case, the answer has to be "no":

- The Phoenicians conquered parts of the Iberian Penninsula.

The Phoenicians did not conquer anything. They only established trading enclaves in some coastal areas of southern Iberia.



- The Goths conquered the Iberian penninsula.

- The Umayyad Caliphate conquered the Iberian penninsula.

- The Almoravids conquered one by one the Taifa states in Muslim Iberia that emerged after the collapse of the Umayyad rule.

- The Alomhads conquered in turn Muslim Iberia from the Almoravids in the wake of their insurgency.

Neither the Goths nor the Muslims conquered the whole Peninsula.



- The reconquista conquered most Muslim territories, with only the Emirate of Granada persisting into the 15th century.


This was really more of an "Iberian-internal thing" as well. The reconquista has even been described as "a civil war between Spaniards of different religions" (Gonzalez Palencia), a justifiable statement, considering that the bulk of Muslims in Iberia were really natives who had embraced Islam.


- The French occupied Spain during the Napeolonic Wars.


This occupation was not really an "invasion" in the proper sense. It was a maneuver in which Napoleon betrayed Spain, an ally who had allowed French troops to enter its territories.

Wilhelm
25-02-11, 16:51
- The Phoenicians conquered parts of the Iberian Penninsula.
First, I said SPAIN, not the Iberian Peninsula. Second, the phoenicians didn't conquer the Iberian Peninsula. They had trading coastal posts, they never put a foot outside their trading posts, that's hardly conquering.


- The Romans conquered the entire Iberian Penninsula.Again, they did not conquer Spain, the conquered Iberia. But romans were a minority anyways.


- The Goths conquered the Iberian penninsula.Not Spain. And they were also a minority.


- The Umayyad Caliphate conquered the Iberian penninsula.
The Almoravids conquered one by one the Taifa states in Muslim Iberia that emerged after the collapse of the Umayyad rule.
- The Alomhads conquered in turn Muslim Iberia from the Almoravids in the wake of their insurgency.

Not Spain. They were a minority also.



- The reconquista conquered most Muslim territories, with only the Emirate of Granada persisting into the 15th century.
The reconquista was made by native people, hardly a conquest. And again, Spain didn't exist yet.


- The French occupied Spain during the Napeolonic Wars.Hardly 'conquered' which what this thread is about.

You failed. Try again.

Sirius2b
25-02-11, 17:23
Mmmm... I think that @Wilhelm ( :rolleyes2: ) "nationalism" is something to admire.

Objectively, there are many acceptions of the world "conquered". I think that in the from page, there is still visible thread in which some Spaniard deny that the Arabs have ever "conquered" Spain.

Naturally, I could find self gratifying arguments to "demonstrate", that Spaniards also never "really" conquered Mexico. :wary2:

(Starting from the fact that Spaniards where here 300+ years, not 800+ as the case of Arabs. I don't know what @Wilhelm will think of that :laughing: ).

Regards.

Wilhelm
25-02-11, 18:02
(Starting from the fact that Spaniards where here 300+ years, not 800+ as the case of Arabs. I don't know what @Wilhelm will think of that :laughing: ).

Regards.
Well, it's not true. To start with, they were not arabs, but Berbers. Second, they were not here for 800+ years. Only in Granada they stayed 781 years, the rest of the Peninsula is much less. For example, Galicia 20 years, Cantabria 0 years, Catalonia less than 100 years, Castille 150 years, etc. But it was hardly a conquest, since they were always a minority.

Cambrius (The Red)
25-02-11, 18:48
Well, it's not true. To start with, they were not arabs, but Berbers. Second, they were not here for 800+ years. Only in Granada they stayed 781 years, the rest of the Peninsula is much less. For example, Galicia 20 years, Cantabria 0 years, South-Catalonia 100 years, Castille 150 years, etc. But it was hardly a conquest, since they were always a minority.
And in Portugal the last Muslim territory was recaptured in the 1200's. In the Minho and Tras os Montes provinces, they were present for about 20 years (essentially outposts), the Porto region ~ 100 years and the Coimbra area, on and off, ~ 300 years. Muslims were likely an even smaller minority in Portuguese territory, compared to Spain as a whole.

Genetically, the Germanics actually had a substantially greater impact on Iberia than some other groups, since they came as a result of migrations and, considering all elements (Visigoths, Suevi, Vandals and Asding Vandals), amounted to at least 325,000 and perhaps as many as 400,000, at a point in time. Moreover, and most important, they were settlers. Haplogroups I1 and I2 (Germanic / Nordic) are found at relatively high levels in various parts of Iberia, including ~ 18% in the Braga region, 15% in parts of Galicia, ~ 17% in Tras-os-Montes, ~ 14% in Leiria and Evora and ~ 20% in parts of Castile. The great majority of NW African E markers are the result of ancient migrations and Semitic J1 clades average less than 2% in the entire Peninsula.

see: Beleza et al (2006).

Wilhelm
25-02-11, 19:12
Genetically, the Germanics actually had a substantially greater impact on Iberia than some other groups, since they came as a result of migrations and, considering all elements (Visigoths, Suevi, Vandals and Asding Vandals), amounted to at least 325,000 and perhaps as many as 400,000, at a point in time. Moreover, and most important, they were settlers. Haplogroups I1 and I2 (Germanic / Nordic) are found at relatively high levels in various parts of Iberia, including ~ 18% in the Braga region, 15% in parts of Galicia, ~ 17% in Tras-os-Montes, ~ 14% in Leiria and Evora and ~ 20% in parts of Castile. The great majority of NW African E markers are the result of ancient migrations and Semitic J1 clades average less than 2% in the entire Peninsula.
see: Beleza et al (2006).
Yes. About the germanics theres also another key factor that differentiates their impact from other invaders : Christianity. The law of Leovigildus in the Liber Iudiciorum that permitted the marriage between Goths and the natives.

Cambrius (The Red)
25-02-11, 20:13
Yes. About the germanics theres also another key factor that differentiates their impact from other invaders : Christianity. The law of Leovigildus in the Liber Iudiciorum that permitted the marriage between Goths and the natives.

Quite correct. Very significant.

Taranis
25-02-11, 20:23
This doesn't change anything about the fact that the Visigoths invaded the Iberian penninsula, overthrew Roman authority and established their own in place.

Of course, Visigothic Kingdom != Spain, but in some respects modern Spain certainly bears some continuity with the Visigothic state.


The Phoenicians did not conquer anything. They only established trading enclaves in some coastal areas of southern Iberia.

They verymuch did. Of course, early Phoenician settlements were merely along the coast, but later on the Carthaginians (at the even of the 1st Punic War, and in the interwar period between the 1st and 2nd Punic Wars) actually expanded their influence and subjugated the Turdetani, as well as most Iberian tribes (up to the Ebro river). Iberians were a major part of the Carthaginian fighting force in the Second Punic War.


Neither the Goths nor the Muslims conquered the whole Peninsula.

The Goths did, and the Moors very nearly did. Besides, both incidents prettymuch refute that the place had never been conquered. Roman Hispania was conquered by the Visigoths. And the Visigothic Kingdom was conquered by the Umayyad Caliphate. Period.

^ lynx ^
25-02-11, 21:08
Mmmm... I think that @Wilhelm ( :rolleyes2: ) "nationalism" is something to admire.

Objectively, there are many acceptions of the world "conquered". I think that in the from page, there is still visible thread in which some Spaniard deny that the Arabs have ever "conquered" Spain.

Naturally, I could find self gratifying arguments to "demonstrate", that Spaniards also never "really" conquered Mexico. :wary2:

(Starting from the fact that Spaniards where here 300+ years, not 800+ as the case of Arabs. I don't know what @Wilhelm will think of that :laughing: ).
Regards.

Actually, spaniards conquered more than Mexico, they conquered "New Spain"...

http://www.reformation.org/new-spain-map.jpg

And right after you finally gained your independence, the "gringos" conquered like 2/3 of your newborn country.

Warm regards.

Maciamo
25-02-11, 21:21
First, I said SPAIN, not the Iberian Peninsula.

Napoleon conquered Spain and placed his family on the throne of Spain. It wasn't long lasting, but it still counts as a foreign conquest. A conquest doesn't require a mass migration, just a military capitulation and a foreign occupation. Otherwise Germany and Japan were never conquered since ancient times, and few countries were, except those that were colonised. But colonisation, especially migratory colonisation like in the Americas, Australia or New Zealand, is far more than just a conquest. It is genetic and cultural replacement. A conquest is purely military and political.

Wilhelm
25-02-11, 21:42
Napoleon conquered Spain and placed his family on the throne of Spain. It wasn't long lasting, but it still counts as a foreign conquest. A conquest doesn't require a mass migration, just a military capitulation and a foreign occupation. Otherwise Germany and Japan were never conquered since ancient times, and few countries were, except those that were colonised. But colonisation, especially migratory colonisation like in the Americas, Australia or New Zealand, is far more than just a conquest. It is genetic and cultural replacement. A conquest is purely military and political.
Napoleon never conquered Spain. A conquest is when your nation becomes part of the nation of the conquerer, and Spain has never been part of France. Only what is now Catalonia has been part of France, but at that time Spain didn't exist.

Grizzly
25-02-11, 21:51
Genetically, the Germanics actually had a substantially greater impact on Iberia than some other groups

:laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing: :laughing:

Grizzly
25-02-11, 21:53
Yes. About the germanics theres also another key factor that differentiates their impact from other invaders : Christianity.

Goths embraced chrisitianism, they didn't bring it in Iberia.

Grizzly
25-02-11, 21:57
Actually, spaniards conquered more than Mexico, they conquered "New Spain"...

And right after you finally gained your independence, the "gringos" conquered like 2/3 of your newborn country.

It is wrong for the Louisiana (now Middle-west). This region has not been conquered, but given by the French authorities for compensation to the participation of Spain in the seven years war. They will take it back, and sell it to US.

Drac
26-02-11, 00:07
They very much did. Of course, early Phoenician settlements were merely along the coast, but later on the Carthaginians (at the even of the 1st Punic War, and in the interwar period between the 1st and 2nd Punic Wars) actually expanded their influence and subjugated the Turdetani, as well as most Iberian tribes (up to the Ebro river). Iberians were a major part of the Carthaginian fighting force in the Second Punic War.


Carthaginians and Phoenicians weren't exactly the same. And as you yourself say, they did not manage to conquer the whole Peninsula either.



The Goths did, and the Moors very nearly did.

As far as I can remember, the Visigoths never fully managed to conquer all of Iberia:

http://www.themiddleages.net/images/visigoth_kingdom.jpg

They always had trouble trying to conquer & control the Cantabrians, Asturians, the Suebians (occupying NW Portugal & Spain), Basques and the Byzantines (who held territories in the south of the Peninsula.)

Cambrius (The Red)
26-02-11, 00:23
:laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing: :laughing:

What are you laughing at? Are you trying to say the Muslims had a greater impact than Germanics on the Iberian gene pool? If that's what you think then prove it. Otherwise keep quite.

Cambrius (The Red)
26-02-11, 00:26
Carthaginians and Phoenicians weren't exactly the same. And as you yourself say, they did not manage to conquer the whole Peninsula either.




As far as I can remember, the Visigoths never fully managed to conquer all of Iberia:

http://www.themiddleages.net/images/visigoth_kingdom.jpg

They always had trouble trying to conquer & control the Cantabrians, Asturians, the Suebians (occupying NW Portugal & Spain), Basques and the Byzantines (who held territories in the south of the Peninsula.)

Another Germanic tribe, the Suevi, did occupy / conquer a large part of the far west and areas in the north.

Sirius2b
26-02-11, 00:35
Actually, spaniards conquered more than Mexico, they conquered "New Spain"...

And right after you finally gained your independence, the "gringos" conquered like 2/3 of your newborn country.

Warm regards.

Mexico, 1500...

http://www.ucalgary.ca/applied_history/tutor/imagevoy/map.gif

Mexico 2011...

http://www.maps-of-mexico.com/images/mexico-country-600x450.gif

Tenochtitlan 1500...

http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/aztecs/aztecs21.gif

Tenochtitlan 2011...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdtQZGR8QQY

I think it could have been worst... :thinking:

+++++++++++++++++++++

What was left to Spain after 500 years of History?

They ended where they began...

Wilhelm
26-02-11, 03:57
Goths embraced chrisitianism, they didn't bring it in Iberia.
I never said they did bring Christianity.

^ lynx ^
26-02-11, 11:27
Mexico, 1500...

http://www.ucalgary.ca/applied_history/tutor/imagevoy/map.gif

Mexico 2011...

http://www.maps-of-mexico.com/images/mexico-country-600x450.gif

Tenochtitlan 1500...

http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/aztecs/aztecs21.gif

Tenochtitlan 2011...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdtQZGR8QQY

I think it could have been worst... :thinking:

+++++++++++++++++++++

What was left to Spain after 500 years of History?

They ended where they began...


Aztec "empire" = Mexico???

Well, you almost have now the same amount of violence and bestiality than back then, but the Aztec empire was founded by the aztecs, Mexico (and New Spain) were founded by spaniards and descendents of spaniards. They are different things. In fact, the current leadership class of Mexico is basically composed by mexicans of spanish descendence, while the poor and the middle-class are predominantly amerindian in different degrees of mixing.

On the other hand, Spain is not being ruled by the descendents of the arabs who invaded Iberia in 711.

Regards.

Mzungu mchagga
26-02-11, 12:10
Just out of interest, are there any Aztec features that can be observed in today's Mexican society? I don't mean things like arts, food, music etc... but philosophy of governance, economy or social structures? I'm really curious to know!

Sirius2b
26-02-11, 14:19
Aztec "empire" = Mexico???

Well, you almost have now the same amount of violence and bestiality than back then,

It is like saying that we have the "aztec violence genes", ain't it? :thinking: Like some indians here are "on the loose", away from the "civilized tradition" that some Spaniards could have left...

However, inside here it looks to me the other way around: Are the Northern States, the more apart from the ancient indian traditions the ones that are more violent... precisely, because they lack some profound philosophical, social and cultural structure.

Likewise: Have you seen the video of Mexico City (= Tenochtitlan?). This is the "violent, leftist-controlled, anti-american hellhole" of Mexico, in USA media in the last decade.

Were not for the violence in the north have been lately too undeniable, Northern Mexico and specially the border, would be still presented in US/Europe Media as the "prosperous NAFTA-oriented self-reliant westernized part of Mexico".

At the end of the day, everyone will see what they want to see.

You too. Me too.


but the Aztec empire was founded by the aztecs, Mexico (and New Spain) were founded by spaniards and descendents of spaniards. They are different things.

In fact, the current leadership class of Mexico is basically composed by mexicans of spanish descendence, while the poor and the middle-class are predominantly amerindian in different degrees of mixing.

There is a trend of that, I admit it.

But that doesn't mean that we had not Indian presidents (e.g. Juarez, Lazaro Cardenas). And most importantly, that the best presidents have been those more Indian... while the worst have been those more proud of their pure Spanish blood.

And, in the context of this forum.. Are not you contradicting yourself?

How many times you have said that you don't want to be related with us in any manner, and resent any association between the concepts Spain and Latin America?

(What's more, you resent to be "lumped with Italians" as "Southern Europeans" :useless: ).

I think that - besides your genetical studies of haplogroups and the like - there are some concepts that you should study with more profoundness.

Regards.

Sirius2b
26-02-11, 14:39
Just out of interest, are there any Aztec features that can be observed in today's Mexican society? I don't mean things like arts, food, music etc... but philosophy of governance, economy or social structures? I'm really curious to know!

:laughing: :laughing: :embarassed:

If you take away "arts, food and music"... what is left of ancient Mexican culture?

Very little.

But if you include "arts, food and music"... the answer will be "a lot".

If we talk about food, Aztecs gave to the world things like Chocolate, Corn, Tomatoes, Avocadoes, etc.

Most of the Art of modern Mexico is indian, and many houses of the middle classes are decorated purely indian, and the like.

However, I do not think that the case of Mexico is unique... is like to ask in any Western country:

"Give me an example of current political, economical an philosophical traditons, that are purely native and local, and not influenced by Greeks and Romans or the general evolution of Western civilization."

++++++++++

P.S.

However, I will say that there is an indian culture and "philosophy of life", not so much "formalized" or written in laws, but inherited, that is very important to define attitudes in Central Mexico.

The former I said only of the society at large. There are pure indian groups that keep their own social and political structures.

Regards.

Mzungu mchagga
26-02-11, 14:45
Hey don't laugh...
How should I know? I mean it's not totally absurd that regardless of domination of other cultures basic features of society and ways of thinking can be preserved! I was just asking!

Sirius2b
26-02-11, 15:10
Hey don't laugh...
How should I know? I mean it's not totally absurd that regardless of domination of other cultures basic features of society and ways of thinking can be preserved! I was just asking!

And I am just answering.

(The laughs are put to imply modesty and lack of sufficient knowledge from my part... not scorn against you).

;)

Carlitos
26-02-11, 16:05
Spain is the result of its history and from birth has never been conquered Spain.

Taranis
26-02-11, 16:14
Carthaginians and Phoenicians weren't exactly the same. And as you yourself say, they did not manage to conquer the whole Peninsula either.




As far as I can remember, the Visigoths never fully managed to conquer all of Iberia:

http://www.themiddleages.net/images/visigoth_kingdom.jpg

They always had trouble trying to conquer & control the Cantabrians, Asturians, the Suebians (occupying NW Portugal & Spain), Basques and the Byzantines (who held territories in the south of the Peninsula.)

Not quite. The map depicts the situation at the end of the 5th century. The Visigoths eventually lost Aquitania and Narbonensian Gaul to the Franks, but in turn managed to gain control over northern and eastern portions of Iberia. In the meantime, the Byzantines (under Belisarius) attempted to conquer southern parts of Iberia and managed to gain temporary hold of the southern parts of Hispania, but were eventually kicked out by the Visigoths. At the eve of the invasion by the Umayyad Caliphate (early 8th century), all of Iberia was under Visigothic control.

Carlitos
26-02-11, 16:40
I have understood is that the Phoenicians, Greeks called the Canaanites, so if the Phoenicians founded Carthage, it's the same people.

The Visigoths had to be a mess to the natives of Iberia and Iberia in one way or another, she broke off from them and its inhumane mentality.

^ lynx ^
26-02-11, 16:40
It is like saying that we have the "aztec violence genes", ain't it? :thinking: Like some indians here are "on the loose", away from the "civilized tradition" that some Spaniards could have left...

You're brainfarting here. I didn't say that anywhere... as usual you're showing your own insecurities.


However, inside here it looks to me the other way around: Are the Northern States, the more apart from the ancient indian traditions the ones that are more violent... precisely, because they lack some profound philosophical, social and cultural structure.

Likewise: Have you seen the video of Mexico City (= Tenochtitlan?). This is the "violent, leftist-controlled, anti-american hellhole" of Mexico, in USA media in the last decade.

Yeah right, USA is the source of all the evil in Mexico... :rolleyes2:


But that doesn't mean that we had not Indian presidents (e.g. Juarez, Lazaro Cardenas). And most importantly, that the best presidents have been those more Indian... while the worst have been those more proud of their pure Spanish blood.

Benito Juarez lived in the 19th century, and Lazaro Cardenas doesn't really look like a typical amerindian. I stand behind my words.


And, in the context of this forum.. Are not you contradicting yourself?

How many times you have said that you don't want to be related with us in any manner, and resent any association between the concepts Spain and Latin America?

The fact that I don't want my country to have a very strong relationships with Latin America doesn't mean that I have to deny the spanish heritage left in Latin America.


(What's more, you resent to be "lumped with Italians" as "Southern Europeans" :useless: ).

I think that - besides your genetical studies of haplogroups and the like - there are some concepts that you should study with more profoundness.

Regards.

You're talking shit here again. I have never suggested such thing, that was your clone mexiCarlitos.

Stop putting words in my mouth that I have never said, thanks.

Regards.

Regulus
26-02-11, 16:49
Goths embraced chrisitianism, they didn't bring it in Iberia.


The Goths were Christians prior to their entry into Aquitaine and Iberia. They had been converted to Arian Christianity (Not equated with Aryan - it was named after an Arius) some time before they showed up in these areas. Even after their arrival, they continued with their Arianism to the point that they existed as a separate ruling caste and never became indentified with the people as did the Franks in time after they adopted Catholicism.

It is true that they did not bring Christianity to Iberia as the people had been converted long before, but they did not embrace the faith of the people.

Regulus
26-02-11, 16:51
Yes. About the germanics theres also another key factor that differentiates their impact from other invaders : Christianity. The law of Leovigildus in the Liber Iudiciorum that permitted the marriage between Goths and the natives.


Very cool - I never heard of these.

Sirius2b
26-02-11, 18:20
Lynxx

The fact that I don't want my country to have a very strong relationships with Latin America doesn't mean that I have to deny the spanish heritage left in Latin America.

I also will not deny the cultural and other contributions of Spain to what is Mexico today. Even if I wanted to, it will be a self delussion, and I myself do not strive to bend my country or personal past to fit some agenda or or psychological needs.

You that think so much in genetics, know that modern Mexicans are half Spaniards, half Amerindias (54% and 46%, to be exact). Culturally, is more or less also half and half.

Nor do I deny the indian past of Mexico and its cultural and philosophical contibutions to ourselves... and much less, when I attest that is precisely this contribution the thing that seems to give more stability and sense to people, in this particular moment of our history.

Regards.

^ lynx ^
26-02-11, 19:01
Lynxx


I also will not deny the cultural and other contributions of Spain to what is Mexico today. Even if I wanted to, it will be a self delussion, and I myself do not strive to bend my country or personal past to fit some agenda or or psychological needs.

You that think so much in genetics, know that modern Mexicans are half Spaniards, half Amerindias (54% and 46%, to be exact). Culturally, is more or less also half and half.

Nor do I deny the indian past of Mexico and its cultural and philosophical contibutions to ourselves... and much less, when I attest that is precisely this contribution the thing that seems to give more stability and sense to people, in this particular moment of our history.

Regards.

54% and 46%???

93% of the mexicans are "mestizos" i.e. racially mixed (most of them being predominantly amerindian). Only the 7% left are either of fully european origin or fully amerindian origin. (Source (http://www.lavanguardia.es/cultura/20090818/53768249274/trazan-el-mapa-genetico-de-la-poblacion-mestiza-mexicana.html))

Talking about psychological needs... :rolleyes2:

Regards.

Wilhelm
26-02-11, 19:06
Lynxx


I also will not deny the cultural and other contributions of Spain to what is Mexico today. Even if I wanted to, it will be a self delussion, and I myself do not strive to bend my country or personal past to fit some agenda or or psychological needs.

You that think so much in genetics, know that modern Mexicans are half Spaniards, half Amerindias (54% and 46%, to be exact). Culturally, is more or less also half and half.

Nor do I deny the indian past of Mexico and its cultural and philosophical contibutions to ourselves... and much less, when I attest that is precisely this contribution the thing that seems to give more stability and sense to people, in this particular moment of our history.

Regards.
Wrong. Mexicans are on average only 28% European :

African Americans from the Southwest (ASW), Utah Whites (CEU), Beijing Chinese (CHB), Mexicans from Los Angeles (MEX), Toscans (TSI), and Yoruban from Nigeria (YRI).
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Ish7688voT0/TK-OFmf-v7I/AAAAAAAACsM/vg-1oM4i1ZI/s1600/pops6.jpg

Sirius2b
26-02-11, 19:23
Wrong. Mexicans are on average only 28% European :

African Americans from the Southwest (ASW), Utah Whites (CEU), Beijing Chinese (CHB), Mexicans from Los Angeles (MEX), Toscans (TSI), and Yoruban from Nigeria (YRI).


You know, the percentage of genetic markers in the Mexican population is something that I remember very well...

Immediatly that I saw your post, I went to "Google" to look for the relevant articles to refute you... but then, I said to myself..

"What am I doing... ?!" :laughing:

The ones that are trying "all to hard" to prove themselves "Europeans" and "Celts"... right or wrong, are the Spaniards in this forum.

What is more... if you bring an article that say that we Mexicans are 10%, 5%, or 0% Europeans... be my guest.

You yourselves, are the one saying that we are not related at all...

I will not contradict you.

Regards. ;)

Wilhelm
26-02-11, 19:26
You know, the percentage of genetic markers in the Mexican population is something that I remember very well...

Immediatly that I saw your post, I went to "Google" to look for the relevant articles to refute you... but then, I said to myself..

"What am I doing... ?!" :laughing:

The ones that are trying "all to hard" to prove themselves "Europeans" and "Celts"... right or wrong, are the Spaniards in this forum.

What is more... if you bring an article that say that we Mexicans are 10%, 5%, or 0% Europeans... be my guest.

You yourselves, are the one saying that we are not related at all...

I will not contradict you.

Regards. ;)
Im only posting genetic facts from a study. Im not inventing anything. If you want to deny science that's your problem.

Cambrius (The Red)
26-02-11, 19:36
Im only posting genetic facts from a study. Im not inventing anything. If you want to deny science that's your problem.

Maybe he also believes that dinosaurs walked the Earth with humans. :useless:

LeBrok
26-02-11, 19:59
You know, the percentage of genetic markers in the Mexican population is something that I remember very well...

Immediatly that I saw your post, I went to "Google" to look for the relevant articles to refute you... but then, I said to myself..

"What am I doing... ?!" :laughing:

The ones that are trying "all to hard" to prove themselves "Europeans" and "Celts"... right or wrong, are the Spaniards in this forum.

What is more... if you bring an article that say that we Mexicans are 10%, 5%, or 0% Europeans... be my guest.

You yourselves, are the one saying that we are not related at all...

I will not contradict you.

Regards. ;)

Great atitude! :good_job:

Their tenacity, vigor and obsession of defending their whitens, westernism, celto-centrism, etc, is simply terrifying! :petrified:
The funny thing is they don’t see it even if the whole world is telling them that. They are their own worst ambassadors, and make Iberia look most backward, chauvinistic, racist and insecure part of Europe. "Good job" guys!

Sirius2b
26-02-11, 20:02
Maybe he also believes that dinosaurs walked the Earth with humans.

Look, I am posting this not because I give any value to be more European or Indian... it is posted just to show to any unwary bystander in these forum, what kind of people you really are...



This study compares genetic polymorphisms at the D1S80 and HLA-DQA1 loci in three Mexican Mestizo populations from three large states (Nuevo Leo´n, Jalisco, and the Federal
District). Allele frequency distributions are relatively homogenous in the three samples; only the
Federal District population shows minor differences of the HLA-DQA1 allele frequencies compared
with the other two. In terms of genetic composition, these Mestizo populations show evidence of
admixture with predominantly Spanish-European (50–60%) and Amerindian (37–49%) contributions;
the African contribution (1–3%) is minor. Together with the observation that in Nuevo Leo´n, the admixture estimates based on D1S80 and HLA-DQA1, are virtually the same as those reported
earlier from blood group loci, suggests that DNA markers, such as D1S80 and HLA-DQA1 are useful for examining genetic homogeneity/heterogeneity across Mestizo populations of Mexico. The inverse relationship of the proportion of gene diversity due to population differences (Gst) to within population
gene diversity (Hs) is also consistent with theoretical predictions, supporting the use of these markers
for population genetics studies. Am. J. Hum. Biol. 14:257–263, 2002. 2002 Wiley-Liss, Inc.


http://backintyme.com/admixture/cerdaflores.pdf

I repeat... not bringing these, because I want to post gazillion threads that want to demonstrate the "Europe-ness" of Mexicans...

Quite different to the Spaniards and Portoguese in these forums, that are rude with Italians, because they make "bad company" as "dark skinned south Europeans"... not to speak how much rudeness and sufficiency they show against or Turks that happen to appear here.

But, oh well, is the lot of this forums... to have these people full of racial complexes, hurted in their inner pride and self-steem... to count how many more threads will be open for the sake of psychological needs...

++++++++++++++++++

No, I post this comment, just to gratify mylself that, once more, these poor, deeply wounded,... but rude people, is caugh again in their lies.

And now, stop talking trash about Mexicans...

You have to complete your daily quota of posts about the "amazing celtic Iberia, craddle of Human Civilization"...

Regards.

^ lynx ^
26-02-11, 20:04
@ Cambria Red, Wilhelm

Forget it lads, there's nothing we can do or say to help this guy. This mexican kid has a huge self-hating problem and is totally unable to accept the predominantly amerindian composition of his country.

He insists he feels proud about the aztec past of his country, but his animosity everytime we show him data about the genetic composition of his country suggest the opposite.

Instead of arguing our data with his own sources, he merely tries to project his own complex over us. This only makes his self-esteem problems to be more evident.

Regards.

^ lynx ^
26-02-11, 20:09
Great atitude! :good_job:

Their tenacity, vigor and obsession of defending their whitens, westernism, celto-centrism, etc, is simply terrifying! :petrified:
The funny thing is they don€™t see it even if the whole world is telling them that. They are their own worst ambassadors, and make Iberia look most backward, chauvinistic, racist and insecure part of Europe. "Good job" guys!


Interesting. You have totally described what Carlitos does in this forum... but curiously you seems to hang along very well with him. :thinking:

But then again, we all know you use to hang along very well with Sirious2b aka mexiCarlitos and all his ***** accounts.

Ciao LeTroll. ;)

Sirius2b
26-02-11, 20:09
Great atitude! :good_job:

Their tenacity, vigor and obsession of defending their whitens, westernism, celto-centrism, etc, is simply terrifying! :petrified:
The funny thing is they don’t see it even if the whole world is telling them that. They are their own worst ambassadors, and make Iberia look most backward, chauvinistic, racist and insecure part of Europe. "Good job" guys!


:good_job: :good_job: :good_job:

^ lynx ^
26-02-11, 20:22
http://backintyme.com/admixture/cerdaflores.pdf

This study is from 2002, the one I posted is from 2009. But for some strange reason you and LeTroll have totally ignored it.


I repeat... not bringing these, because I want to post gazillion threads that want to demonstrate the "Europe-ness" of Mexicans...

Yeah, keep repeating that to yourself.


Quite different to the Spaniards and Portoguese in these forums, that are rude with Italians, because they make "bad company" as "dark skinned south Europeans"... not to speak how much rudeness and sufficiency they show against or Turks that happen to appear here.

But, oh well, is the lot of this forums... to have these people full of racial complexes, hurted in their inner pride and self-steem... to count how many more threads will be open for the sake of psychological needs...

As I said earlier, you can only lie and project your own complex over us, because you don't have anything intelligent to say for arguing against our data about Mexico being predominantly amerindian. Thanks for making my point once more and take care of your self-esteem problems.

Regards.

Wilhelm
26-02-11, 20:41
Look, I am posting this not because I give any value to be more European or Indian... it is posted just to show to any unwary bystander in these forum, what kind of people you really are...



http://backintyme.com/admixture/cerdaflores.pdf

I repeat... not bringing these, because I want to post gazillion threads that want to demonstrate the "Europe-ness" of Mexicans...

Quite different to the Spaniards and Portoguese in these forums, that are rude with Italians, because they make "bad company" as "dark skinned south Europeans"... not to speak how much rudeness and sufficiency they show against or Turks that happen to appear here.

But, oh well, is the lot of this forums... to have these people full of racial complexes, hurted in their inner pride and self-steem... to count how many more threads will be open for the sake of psychological needs...

++++++++++++++++++

No, I post this comment, just to gratify mylself that, once more, these poor, deeply wounded,... but rude people, is caugh again in their lies.

And now, stop talking trash about Mexicans...

You have to complete your daily quota of posts about the "amazing celtic Iberia, craddle of Human Civilization"...

Regards.
You have not even read your own study. It doesn't say Mexicans but Mexican Mestizoes. Obviously a mestizo has more european input. The one study that I presented was about the overall admixture of mexicans from Los Angeles regardless of being mestizo or pure Indian. :good_job:

Sirius2b
26-02-11, 20:49
I obtained my satisfaction... :laughing:

Now, you could post "the most recent studies" :laughing: that say that we Mexicans are 0% Spaniards.

(For what anybody cares... :laughing: )

But honestly... this text of @LeBrok is epic...

"Their tenacity, vigor and obsession of defending their whitens, westernism, celto-centrism, etc, is simply terrifying! :petrified: The funny thing is they don't see it even if the whole world is telling them that. They are their own worst ambassadors, and make Iberia look most backward, chauvinistic, racist and insecure part of Europe. "Good job" guys!"

I think I will print it and put it in the wall in front of me... My stomach still hurts of so much laughing.... :D

Cambrius (The Red)
26-02-11, 20:53
Great atitude! :good_job:

Their tenacity, vigor and obsession of defending their whitens, westernism, celto-centrism, etc, is simply terrifying! :petrified:
The funny thing is they don’t see it even if the whole world is telling them that. They are their own worst ambassadors, and make Iberia look most backward, chauvinistic, racist and insecure part of Europe. "Good job" guys!

My, my, my, you must have the aluminum foil cap on today. Supporting lies engendered by delusional insecure minds over and over. Again, how old are you? Stop with the hate, it makes you look even more foolish than you already are.

What we are saying about Iberia is the truth. If you don't like it move to an alternative universe.

Wilhelm
26-02-11, 20:53
Great atitude! :good_job:

Their tenacity, vigor and obsession of defending their whitens, westernism, celto-centrism, etc, is simply terrifying! :petrified:
The funny thing is they don’t see it even if the whole world is telling them that. They are their own worst ambassadors, and make Iberia look most backward, chauvinistic, racist and insecure part of Europe. "Good job" guys!
I could say the same about you and all the ****** :

Their tenacity, vigor and obsession in deniying the celts of Iberia, their westernism, is simply terrifying! :petrified:

Cambrius (The Red)
26-02-11, 20:55
I obtained my satisfaction... :laughing:

Now, you could post "the most recent studies" :laughing: that say that we Mexicans are 0% Spaniards.

(For what anybody cares... :laughing: )

But honestly... this text of @LeBrok is epic...

"Their tenacity, vigor and obsession of defending their whitens, westernism, celto-centrism, etc, is simply terrifying! :petrified: The funny thing is they don't see it even if the whole world is telling them that. They are their own worst ambassadors, and make Iberia look most backward, chauvinistic, racist and insecure part of Europe. "Good job" guys!"

I think I will print it and put it in the wall in front of me... My stomach still hurts of so much laughing.... :D

Delusional minds reinforcing one another. Now it's my turn to laugh until my stomach hurts. :laughing:

Cambrius (The Red)
26-02-11, 20:58
I could say the same about you and all the ****** :

Their tenacity, vigor and obsession in deniying the celts of Iberia, their westernism, is simply terrifying! :petrified:

Isn't DENYING AND MANIPULATING REALITY part of what defines certain types of mental illness? On this thread and some others we have prime examples of such. Talk about off-the-wall... :laughing: SOCIOPATHIC!

^ lynx ^
26-02-11, 20:59
You have not even read your own study. It doesn't say Mexicans but Mexican Mestizoes.

Plus, that study is made on the population of only three states: Nuevo Leon, Jalisco and the Federal District. That's a joke if you consider the population density map of Mexico:

http://www.esacademic.com/pictures/eswiki/55/700px-Mexico_estados_densidad.svg.png
http://www.gestionturistica.cl/imagenes/interior/otros/mexico.gif

And the fact that the amerindian component is stronger the nearer you are to the south.

Regards.


(For what anybody cares... )

Yes, surely you don't care... you look so relaxed, self-confident and soooooooo NOT caring for it. :smile:

Sirius2b
27-02-11, 01:46
Yes, keep posting your maps... (population density?) and such... you think that I will respond to your trash.. but no.

I will not put any image or link here (why have you not yet started to post your overexposed photos about collection of white spaniards, really beats me).

Whoever feels little curiosity about the theme, just have to go to YouTube an type "racism, Spain", "whites, Spain", and the like, to have its tube flooded with tons of garbage about the incredible obsesson of Spaniards with skin color and how much hurt are they for not being accepted as they want in Europe... I really don't now right now, what happened first: If you really are so dark skinned for western european standards... or the ****** already know how to make you throw foam from the mouth, and tease you where it really hurts to you.

Really, I even saw Videos with traditional Irish music, and supposed "recreational drawings" of "ancient Celtic civilization of Spain"... you are pitiful.

(Shame on me, I almost fall from the chair from pure laugh.)

I wonder how could you live like that at all.

Pity, is what I feel for you.

Wilhelm
27-02-11, 02:16
Y
Whoever feels little curiosity about the theme, just have to go to YouTube an type "racism, Spain", "whites, Spain", and the like, to have its tube flooded with tons of garbage about the incredible obsesson of Spaniards with skin color and how much hurt are they for not being accepted as they want in Europe...
Youtube is flooded with latinos with a huge inferiority complex like you who are obssesed with spaniards, plenty of videos calling us all the time moors, arabs and such. Really boring. And we don't need to be accepted as european because we actually ARE european already.


I really don't now right now, what happened first: If you really are so dark skinned for western european standards... or the ****** already know how to make you throw foam from the mouth, and tease you where it really hurts to you.dark skinned for western european standars ? Not quite :
http://racialreality.blogspot.com/2006/01/skin-reflectance-of-selected-world.html



Really, I even saw Videos with traditional Irish music, and supposed "recreational drawings" of "ancient Celtic civilization of Spain"... you are pitiful. Pitiful ? You are insulting our history, and all the folk, traditions, customs and culture of Iberia, are you aware of this ? No, it's not irish music you ignorant idiot, it's our own culture. But you are an ignorant idiot who doesn't know anything about us and you think it's Irish culture.


(Shame on me, I almost fall from the chair from pure laugh.)Well, laughing at others's cultures is really insane.


I wonder how could you live like that at all.Well, it's our culture, and we are proud of it, unlike you.


Pity, is what I feel for you.You are again insulting our culture and traditions. Pitiy is what I feel for you really, imbecile.

Cambrius (The Red)
27-02-11, 04:07
Yes, keep posting your maps... (population density?) and such... you think that I will respond to your trash.. but no.

I will not put any image or link here (why have you not yet started to post your overexposed photos about collection of white spaniards, really beats me).

Whoever feels little curiosity about the theme, just have to go to YouTube an type "racism, Spain", "whites, Spain", and the like, to have its tube flooded with tons of garbage about the incredible obsesson of Spaniards with skin color and how much hurt are they for not being accepted as they want in Europe... I really don't now right now, what happened first: If you really are so dark skinned for western european standards... or the ****** already know how to make you throw foam from the mouth, and tease you where it really hurts to you.

Really, I even saw Videos with traditional Irish music, and supposed "recreational drawings" of "ancient Celtic civilization of Spain"... you are pitiful.

(Shame on me, I almost fall from the chair from pure laugh.)

I wonder how could you live like that at all.

Pity, is what I feel for you.

"Overexposed photos". To you EVERY photo of an Iberian is overexposed. What planet are you from, fella? :useless:

Sirius2b
27-02-11, 04:39
"Overexposed photos". To you EVERY photo of an Iberian is overexposed. What planet are you from, fella? :useless:

Not of the same planet as you.

(Don't you say that yourselves? :rolleyes2: ).

You know something... I have been in Europe, but never in Iberia (I don't know what happy coincidence spared me from that).

I really never had much interest of you... I took you for "granted". I congratulate myself on that.

Now, knowing you, I am not really "disaponted", only a bit "surprised".

I don't say that there are also some stupid Latinos that somehow feel some affinity for you. I knew of some cases that went there, happy to finally know "the motherland" ( :D ) and you treated them like sh*t.

I say: "Keep the good work".

For no matter how much you want to force your "celticity", "pure bloodness" and other weeds, down other peoples throats... they will take it for what it is: A desperate attempt to scape from your own selves... and you know the status of Spaniards in the popular mentality of western european countries.

Do you think that your delusions are going to change that? Or, that real elements of prestige and power, such as "economy" are going to be subordinated to that?

I hope that when you awake, we will be not there.

And now, I will make the renewed attempt to ignore you, Iberians.

Regards.

Cambrius (The Red)
27-02-11, 05:15
Not of the same planet as you.
(Don't you say that yourselves? :rolleyes2: ).
You know something... I have been in Europe, but never in Iberia (I don't know what happy coincidence spared me from that).
I really never had much interest of you... I took you for "granted". I congratulate myself on that - Now, knowing you, I am not really "disaponted", only a bit "surprised".
I don't say that there are also some stupid Latinos that somehow feel some affinity for you. I knew of some cases that went there, happy to finally know "the motherland" ( :D ) and you treated them like sh*t.
I say: "Keep the good work".
For no matter how much you want to force your "celticity" and other weeds, down other peoples throats... they will take it for what it is: A desperate attempt to scape from your own selves... and you know the status of Spaniards in the popular mentality of western european countries.
Do you think that you delusions are going to change that? Or, that real elements of status and power, such as economy are going to be subordinated to that?
I hope that when you awake, we will be not there.
And now, I will make the attempt to ignore you, Iberians.
Regards.
You of all people should not be referring to others as delusional. Without doubt, you have some serious psychological issues when it comes to Iberians. Time to take a hard look at yourself and stop fabricating outrageous falsehoods about people from Iberia.

You displayed an incredible level of ignorance in a previous post by suggesting that Spaniards "borrow" from the Irish culture - music in particular. You can't be freaking serious. Clearly, you know nothing, ABSOLUTELY nothing, about the cultures of Spaniards and Portuguese. Celtic music is part of ancient Iberian folk traditions, from regions like Gallaecia (Galiza and N. Portugal), Asturias, Leon, Cantabria and the Beiras. Celtic instruments are even played in areas like Extramadura and Catalonia. This style of music is part of a rich corpus of indigenous socio-cultural practices that is thousands of years old, not "borrowed" from some other culture or population group. It is a component of the Iberian habitus and contributes significantly to our ethnic identity.

Ask any reasonably educated Irish person if we borrow from their culture and he will laugh in your face.

Wilhelm
27-02-11, 06:00
For no matter how much you want to force your "celticity", "pure bloodness" and other weeds, down other peoples throats... they will take it for what it is: A desperate attempt to scape from your own selves...

You are ridiculous. Our own selves ? What are we supposed to be according to you ? Clearly, you know nothing about Iberia. You mexicans are as ignorant as the Americans when it comes to Iberia.


and you know the status of Spaniards in the popular mentality of western european countries.
yeah, right. Not only you know nothing about Iberia, but also about Europe.

Carlitos
27-02-11, 06:39
I think what has happened in Spain before the emergence of genetics is that everyone took for granted that the Spanish were far more Arab or African genetics that have actual results, perhaps attributable to the hackneyed Arab presence the famous 800 years, plus many European scholars attributed to an African origin for Iberian and now the results are other than expected and is difficult for some Europeans take the reality. Presumably if Spain had not lost some trains and was an economic power in Europe, no one would question the genetic reality of Spain. Anyway, if some call themselves as Indo-Europeans, Iberians have an African origin would be Afro-European, "yet never used this term European scholars?, as they say in Spain and some will be seen the duster.

^ lynx ^
27-02-11, 10:49
This is a forum related with genetics: And we are posting scientific data about the mexican genetic composition (with sources), while Sirious2b aka hangman aka Carlitos aka etc. is replying with insults, twisting our words, ******** with clone accounts and projecting his own complex over us.

It's pretty clear who is the racist, who has a problem with skin colours and who has an inferiority complex towards his ethnicity.

I would advised you to stop talking and not to embarrass yourself even more, but I think it is too late already for it.

Then again we can't put all the blame in you, you were born in a racist country who likes to portray an unreal image of its population:


Mexico Slow to Confront Racial Issues, Experts Say

Lennox Samuels, Dallas Morning News

MEXICO CITY—The man visiting from the south of Spain was having a revelation as he walked along Michoacan Street in the city’s fashionable Condesa section.

“There are an awful lot of brown people on the street,” he exclaimed. “You don’t get that at all from the mexican TV and advertising.”

Foreigners in Mexico City who look at Mexican television—or movies or magazines or anything with human faces on it—could be excused for thinking they had landed in a European city.

Officially, Mexico’s population is mestizaje—a mixture of White and Indian, or mestizos. But the country’s political, business, social and cultural elite is dominated by White descendants of Spanish conquistadors, while mixed-race, indigenous and Black people generally are relegated to supporting roles in society.

Mexico has taken major steps toward democracy but lags significantly on civil rights, analysts say. The nation, they say, harbors racism and is years away from addressing it because few in positions of power understand or even acknowledge the situation, and many of those affected by it have long accepted the status quo.

But Indian activist Abel Barrera said indigenous people have long been at the bottom of society.

“They are considered second-class persons,” said Barrera, director of the Human Rights Center in Tlapa, Guerrero. “Throughout history, they have been stigmatized for their languages, religious expressions and culture.”

In a speech recently, Fox sought to embrace the Indians.

“Cultural diversity of the indigenous people is an essential part of our national being and enriches us as a nation,” he said. “The indigenous people in Mexico are not part of the past; they belong in the present, and together we are building the future.”

Neither he nor any other top official has made such a statement about Black people. No one even has a firm idea how many Blacks there are in the country, although the government estimates 500,000 Afro-Mexicans live along the Costa Chica, which covers the states of Guerrero and Oaxaca.

Most history textbooks have little if any reference to Mexican Blacks, who were brought into the country by the Spanish. Sintesis de la Historia de Mexico (Synthesis of Mexico’s History), a textbook used in junior high school, devotes less than one of its 405 pages to Black Mexicans.

It was not until the 1980s that the so-called tercera raiz, or "third-root," movement sought to show that Black people also were part of Mexico's culture.

"They (Black Mexicans) are not recognized yet as a specific ethnic group," said Jose Luis Gutierrez, education director of the National Council to Prevent Discrimination. "In Mexico just a few years ago, talk began of a third root. Not only the Spanish root and indigenous but also the Black root. But evidently, Afro-Mexicans get little recognition culturally."

The council was created only in April 2004 under an anti-discrimination law pushed by Fox and passed by Mexico's Congress in July 2003.

"There's a situation of evident discrimination that translates into poverty and inequality, lack of access to even the most basic services," Gutierrez said.

But some Mexicans insist there is no discrimination in the country. Some of the most vociferous are Black.

"No, absolutely not," said popular singer Johnny Laboriel when asked whether he considers Mexico racist. "I was born in Mexico, and I have never been discriminated against because of my color. They discriminate more because of one's economic standing."

Laboriel is one of only a handful of well-known Black entertainers in Mexico, including the young pop singer Kalimba and the comedian Zamorita. Asked to name other prominent Blacks, Laboriel could only say "a guy named Newman and the Marichan family who are the parents of Kalimba."

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0731MEXICO-RACISM31.html

Being exposed to this racist brainwashing for years has clearly made you unable to accept the racial reality of your country and act like a cretin toward whoever shows you the truth.

Now you can go and ask Maciamo to censorship this article again but your country's social reality is not going to change.

Regards.

^ lynx ^
27-02-11, 13:10
... and you know the status of Spaniards in the popular mentality of western european countries.

I don't know what are you talking about here but I do know which is the status of spaniards in the popular mentality of the latin american countries: Everybody wants to be (ethnically) spanish, cause everybody relates being spanish with social power and a high economical status while being amerindian is always related with poverty and illiteracy.

I know guys like you Sirious2b, I've visited latin american forums for years and I have stood speechless in front of many latin americans fighting for "which country has the highest percentage of whites in latin america?" "which country received the highest amount of spanish immigrants?" "which country received the highest amount of italians/germans/frenchs immigrants?", etc. etc. Curiously, they were always arguing for having the highest amount of whites but never for having the highest amount of native americans. And everytime I tried to speak rationally to them all I got was the all-time-classic pathetic reply "you spaniards are moors, you are not europeans, bla bla bla". This is something you are familiarized with for sure. Sad, predictable and pathetic.

We have problems with racism in Europe for sure, but nothing compared with the shit you have in Latin America, where racism is a style of life and the main premise for social organization. Things seems to be changed slightly in Bolivia though.

So don't pretend like Europe shares the same the sick social structure with latin america, and stop trying to project your ethnic frustrations and complexes over spaniards. It's getting repetitive and boring. Feel pity for yourself and your continent instead.

Regards.

Cambrius (The Red)
27-02-11, 18:17
I don't know what are you talking about here but I do know which is the status of spaniards in the popular mentality of the latin american countries: Everybody wants to be (ethnically) spanish, cause everybody relates being spanish with social power and a high economical status while being amerindian is always related with poverty and illiteracy.

I know guys like you Sirious2b, I've visited latin american forums for years and I have stood speechless in front of many latin americans fighting for "which country has the highest percentage of whites in latin america?" "which country received the highest amount of spanish immigrants?" "which country received the highest amount of italians/germans/frenchs immigrants?", etc. etc. Curiously, they were always arguing for having the highest amount of whites but never for having the highest amount of native americans. And everytime I tried to speak rationally to them all I got was the all-time-classic pathetic reply "you spaniards are moors, you are not europeans, bla bla bla". This is something you are familiarized with for sure. Sad, predictable and pathetic.

We have problems with racism in Europe for sure, but nothing compared with the shit you have in Latin America, where racism is a style of life and the main premise for social organization. Things seems to be changed slightly in Bolivia though.

So don't pretend like Europe shares the same the sick social structure with latin america, and stop trying to project your ethnic frustrations and complexes over spaniards. It's getting repetitive and boring. Feel pity for yourself and your continent instead.

Regards.

I've noticed the same thing in my travels to South America, in both Spanish and Portuguese speaking countries. There is a general dislike for the mother country and a mind boggling level of conceptual distortion as regards Iberian culture and ethnicity. A good many Latin Americans have no sense of reality when it comes to these things. They are also racist towards their indigenous folk and those of Black African heritage. Seriously bizarre...

Carlitos
27-02-11, 18:34
The current contradiction that exists in today Hispanoamerica love hate to Spain due to my understanding to the destabilization of Spain by regional nationalists, who have sown hatred and distrust of Spain in the American countries that had always provided to the mother country with respect and pride. Regional nationalism in Spain since democracy has been a constant work in sink any symbol and identity of the Spanish national unity and an important link was the marriage and respect for Spanish-speaking countries, I hope that things return to normal regionalist nationalist lies have failed to break the pride of belonging to a huge Spanish-speaking community. My wishes for Spanish America would be to banish racism and classism that keep between themselves and did not see eye to Spain regionalist Nazism doing so much harm to Spain and therefore the Spanish-American relations.

Vallicanus
28-02-11, 01:28
Let's re-phrase.
The Romans conquered the territory which became Spain and Portugal.
Their languages are Latin derivatives.

Carlitos
28-02-11, 01:47
Let's re-phrase.
The Romans conquered the territory which became Spain and Portugal.
Their languages are Latin derivatives.

But you can not say it was Spain, La Bética, the conventus gaditanus, had a seat each in the Roman Senate. The Iberian peninsula was divided at that time, people should not have a sense of belonging to a country or nation as we have at present Spain as such would be born much later.

http://www.turismoyarte.com/roma/mapa1.jpg

Vallicanus
28-02-11, 09:28
I don't see your point.

The Romans conquered the ancestors of the Spanish and Portuguese in the territory which later became Spain and Portugal.

Carlitos
28-02-11, 23:19
I don't see your point.

The Romans conquered the ancestors of the Spanish and Portuguese in the territory which later became Spain and Portugal.

The point is that the previous Roman peoples of the Iberian peninsula were ignored each other, perhaps made an attempt Viriato peninsular union against Rome, but was not fruitful. When Rome after 200 years mastering the Iberian peninsula's divided into territories and to the natives of that time say I'm Hispanic must be like for us to say now: I'm from planet Earth. Spain as a nation is born much later consequence of their past, and to date no one has won, it was other way around, looks the same, but it is not the same.

Grizzly
02-03-11, 23:43
What are you laughing at?

At your neverending nordicist fantasy.


Are you trying to say the Muslims had a greater impact than Germanics on the Iberian gene pool? If that's what you think then prove it. Otherwise keep quite.

I don't really know (in fact, I don't care), and you don't know either. Unless you are able to scientifically prove your genetics assertions. Otherwise keep quite.

Grizzly
02-03-11, 23:53
You displayed an incredible level of ignorance in a previous post by suggesting that Spaniards "borrow" from the Irish culture - music in particular.

Thanks. I'm learning a new english expression, and I think it will very useful for the next posts.

Wilhelm
03-03-11, 00:20
At your neverending nordicist fantasy.
I don't really know (in fact, I don't care), and you don't know either. Unless you are able to scientifically prove your genetics assertions. Otherwise keep quite.
Then how do you explain that in Autosomal the spaniards have only 2% north-africa, while they have around 40% North-European ? See these genetic projects :

https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0ArAJcY18g2GadDRCd0dva0dwTzc3a0JicjZmRE96b Gc&hl=en&authkey=CPGxtqQM#gid=0


Thanks. I'm learning a new english expression, and I think it will very useful for the next posts.
You are insane.

Cambrius (The Red)
03-03-11, 00:20
At your neverending nordicist fantasy.



I don't really know (in fact, I don't care), and you don't know either. Unless you are able to scientifically prove your genetics assertions. Otherwise keep quite.

I already provided evidence (Beleza et al., 2006). In addition, check the most recent autosomal DNA frequencies per country, some of which have been posted on Eupedia. Your opinions about peer reviewed and accepted genetic research are absurd. Well structured genetic research does not lie. It's time to stop with the exaggerations and falsehoods. Puerile behavior is not acceptable here.

Cambrius (The Red)
03-03-11, 00:22
Thanks. I'm learning a new english expression, and I think it will very useful for the next posts.

What alternate universe are you living in?

Grizzly
03-03-11, 00:27
What alternate universe are you living in?

It is called "reality".

Grizzly
03-03-11, 00:28
About DNA features or other genetics, I will never believe that such ones can decide if you have great-great-parents from here or there. So, these studies make me laugh. But if people want to believe in it, it is their right.

Wilhelm
03-03-11, 00:30
About DNA features or other genetics, I will never believe that such ones can decide if you have great-great-parents from here or there. So, these studies make me laugh. But if people want to believe in it, it is their right.
Actually these studies don't decide were your great-great-parents were from. If you have no idea about genetics, better shut up. The Y-chromosome is inherited from father to son, and the mithocondrila from mother to children, but only mother can transmit to children.

Grizzly
03-03-11, 00:31
Then how do you explain that in Autosomal the spaniards have only 2% north-africa, while they have around 40% North-European ? See these genetic projects :

https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0ArAJcY18g2GadDRCd0dva0dwTzc3a0JicjZmRE96b Gc&hl=en&authkey=CPGxtqQM#gid=0



I don't seen any source in your quote. I'm curious to see on which scientifical basis your statements are based on.

Cambrius (The Red)
03-03-11, 00:31
It is called "reality".

No, it's called non-reality. Or, "reality" as you WISH it to be.

Cambrius (The Red)
03-03-11, 00:34
About DNA features or other genetics, I will never believe that such ones can decide if you have great-great-parents from here or there. So, these studies make me laugh. But if people want to believe in it, it is their right.

Then I guess you don't believe in science. Case closed.

Wilhelm
03-03-11, 00:37
I don't seen any source in your quote. I'm curious to see on which scientifical basis your statements are based on.
LOL. It's from the Dodecad Genome Project, which has apperead in the scientific magazine Nature, and it's based on the Genome of people.

http://dodecad.blogspot.com/

Anyways, Iberia has around 70% of R1b-M269, while the arabic J1 is less than 1% :

http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup_R1b.gif


http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/J1-map.jpg

Wilhelm
03-03-11, 00:38
There is not much to debate with a person who doesn't believe in science, nor historians, only in his emotions and inner mental problems..What can we do ?

Carlitos
03-03-11, 01:12
It is not possible, is here too?, every thread I enter the mouth and hooves man is denying Celtic Spain.

Grizzly
12-03-11, 00:05
There is not much to debate with a person who doesn't believe in science, nor historians, only in his emotions and inner mental problems..What can we do ?

There is not much to debate with a complexed nordic wannabe who does not believe in science, nor historians, only in his emotions and inner mental problems. What can we do ?

Grizzly
12-03-11, 00:06
Then I guess you don't believe in science-fiction. Case closed.

Yes, case closed.

Wilhelm
12-03-11, 00:24
There is not much to debate with a complexed nordic wannabe who does not believe in science, nor historians, only in his emotions and inner mental problems. What can we do ?
A complexed nordic-wannabe ? Since when the Celts were nordic ? And yes of course I believe in genetics and historians, that's why I don't deny the Celtiticiy of Iberia because it's the agreement of all historians and now genetics confirm it. I have shown sources. You didn't. Because you don't have. You have sistematically denied everything for the sake of it, with out any evidences, nothing.

I don't believe in historians ? How about this :

"Modern scholarship, however, has clearly proven that Celtic presence and influences were most substantial in Iberia (with perhaps the highest settlement saturation in Western Europe), particularly in the western and northern regions. "

Alberto J. Lorrio, Gonzalo Ruiz Zapatero (2005). "The Celts in Iberia: An Overview". E-Keltoi: Journal of Interdisciplinary Celtic Studies 6: 167–254. http://www.uwm.edu/Dept/celtic/ekeltoi/volumes/vol6/6_4/lorrio_zapatero_6_4.html.

^ lynx ^
12-03-11, 00:34
There is not much to debate with a complexed nordic wannabe who does not believe in science, nor historians, only in his emotions and inner mental problems. What can we do ?

Oh... so now celts, celtiberians and iberians were nordics?

http://i920.photobucket.com/albums/ad47/ping600/clap.gif

Pure brillance.

Regards.

Grizzly
12-03-11, 00:55
"Modern scholarship, however, has clearly proven that Celtic presence and influences were most substantial in Iberia (with perhaps the highest settlement saturation in Western Europe), particularly in the western and northern regions. "

Alberto J. Lorrio, Gonzalo Ruiz Zapatero (2005). "The Celts in Iberia: An Overview". E-Keltoi: Journal of Interdisciplinary Celtic Studies 6: 167–254. http://www.uwm.edu/Dept/celtic/ekeltoi/volumes/vol6/6_4/lorrio_zapatero_6_4.html.


Stupid assertion based on nothing, like a lot of E-Keltoi bullshit (oh, yeah, some Celtic spoons in the ground, or inscriptions). I have shown you several other sources about the Iberian question. Conclusion : a total controversy. If there is controversy, it is impossible to claim that Iberia is the most Celticized country in Antiquity.

Grizzly
12-03-11, 00:56
Oh... so now celts, celtiberians and iberians were nordics?

Pure brillance.

Regards.

Iberians ?

Spanish inhabitants were indeed mostly Iberian-speaking, where is the problem ?

^ lynx ^
12-03-11, 12:47
You're suggesting that celtics, iberians and celtiberians were... nordics. No problem at all with that, of course.

Thanks for enlighten us with your unlimited wisdom. :good_job:

Regards.

Grizzly
12-03-11, 17:12
You're suggesting that celtics, iberians and celtiberians were... nordics. No problem at all with that, of course.

Thanks for enlighten us with your unlimited wisdom. :good_job:

Regards.

I've never spoken about Iberians, it is you. And the fact that you want Spain to be Celtic is a kind of nordic-"wannabeism". If it is something else, thanks to explain us.

Wilhelm
12-03-11, 17:42
Iberians ?

Spanish inhabitants were indeed mostly Iberian-speaking, where is the problem ?
Where is the problem ? The problem is that you are inventing history. You don't have any source for this baseless claim. Because about 2/3 of Iberia was Celtic speaking, that's what all historians agree with.


I've never spoken about Iberians, it is you. And the fact that you want Spain to be Celtic is a kind of nordic-"wannabeism". If it is something else, thanks to explain us.
The Celts were not Nordic, to start with. And we don't want "Spain to be Celtic", it's our history that is Celtic.

^ lynx ^
12-03-11, 18:03
I've never spoken about Iberians, it is you. And the fact that you want Spain to be Celtic is a kind of nordic-"wannabeism". If it is something else, thanks to explain us.

I don't want Spain to be celtic. I'm saying that spaniards are predominantly celtiberian, not because I want it... I say it because that's what the genetic researches have pointed out (you have enough data upload by Maciamo in this website).

It's you who are in denial, it's you who seems bothered about the spanish genetic pool for some strange reason. And again, celtics were not nordics. You're statements are turning more and more disturbing and stupider with every new post.

With your repetitive attempts of twisting our words you're beggining to remind me to a very recent banned *****: Sirious2b.

Regards.

Cambrius (The Red)
12-03-11, 18:16
I've never spoken about Iberians, it is you. And the fact that you want Spain to be Celtic is a kind of nordic-"wannabeism". If it is something else, thanks to explain us.

Time for a reality check. The entire educated world is against you. You are wasting time and space with your baseless notions

Case closed...

Cambrius (The Red)
12-03-11, 18:18
Yes, case closed.

Yes, YOUR "case" is closed. Can't you see the reality of the situation? Apparently not.

Cambrius (The Red)
12-03-11, 18:23
Yes, case closed.

Thanks for editing my post.:useless:

The only person influenced by "science-fiction" as far as Iberia's Celticity is concerned is YOU. Aren't you tired of looking foolish? Lose gracefully and move on.

Cambrius (The Red)
12-03-11, 18:31
Iberians ?

Spanish inhabitants were indeed mostly Iberian-speaking, where is the problem ?

Examine all the ancient language maps of Iberia. Do you have problems seeing? Would you like us to put you in touch with some well-recognized Celticists, philologists and linguists who are experts in the old languages and cultures of Iberia? Stop with the nonsense already.

Brady
15-03-11, 01:01
I can see there's a lot of "celtics" spaniards in here...ja, ja, ja

Carlitos
15-03-11, 01:16
I can see there's a lot of "celtics" spaniards in here...ja, ja, ja

Welcome straw man. Ja,ja,ja.

Wilhelm
15-03-11, 02:01
I can see there's a lot of "celtics" spaniards in here...ja, ja, ja
ja, ja, ja.... pobre analfabeto acomplejado. Ya sabemos que eres Sirious2b después de ser baneado, como bien te merecias.

Carlitos
15-03-11, 02:17
Ahora me entero, por qué han baneado a Sirius2b, qué ha hecho. :laughing:

^ lynx ^
15-03-11, 17:32
I can see there's a lot of "celtics" spaniards in here...ja, ja, ja

http://c1.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images02/88/l_17dbd297e48f4480b3da9e0f0899c90c.jpg

Canek
23-03-11, 13:31
aztecs were defeat by other amerindian tribes... somehow you can say they was never conquered by another "nation"

sparkey
23-03-11, 18:27
aztecs were defeat by other amerindian tribes... somehow you can say they was never conquered by another "nation"

Spanish conquest of the Aztec Empire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_conquest_of_the_Aztec_Empire)

It's more like, other Amerindian tribes helped Spain do it.

Brady
23-03-11, 18:49
Spanish conquest of the Aztec Empire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_conquest_of_the_Aztec_Empire)

It's more like, other Amerindian tribes helped Spain do it.

I agree with you.

Canek
23-03-11, 18:58
exactly my point... spaniards never conquered anything, they were jus opportunistic people. they didn't even conquered their our lands against the moors... the moors just entered in decadency.

Brady
23-03-11, 19:08
exactly my point... spaniards never conquered anything, they were jus opportunistic people. they didn't even conquered their our lands against the moors... the moors just entered in decadency.

Well I got it, spaniards never conquered aztecs...alone, if this is it, you're right. By the way aztec empire felt down by decadency too as moors felt down in spain. Kind regards.

Canek
23-03-11, 19:10
spaniards simply never conquered aztecs... they just waited until the amerindians killed between them.


By the way aztec empire felt down by decadency too as moors felt down in spain.

not in the same degree.

Brady
23-03-11, 19:15
spaniards simply never conquered aztecs... they just waited until the amerindians killed between them.



not in the same degree.

This is a point of interest.

Cambrius (The Red)
23-03-11, 23:28
The Moors spent as much time fighting among themselves as they did against the Christians in Iberia.

In Portugal, the Reconquista was accomplished more quickly and efficiently partly because of the Knights Templar, who were well established in the country. The Templars were invited in by Queen Consort Teresa I (the first true monarch of Portugal) in the early 1100s and were instrumental in retaking and protecting the south.

Conflicts between the three Christian Spanish kingdoms, along with considerations of geography, prevented Spain from eliminating the Moors completely until unification occurred in 1492.

Grizzly
26-03-11, 00:01
The problem is that you are inventing history. You don't have any source for this baseless claim.

There has already been a discussion about this in the thread "Italo-celtic expansion". I have joined sources online, and there are many others.

Grizzly
26-03-11, 00:07
It's you who are in denial, it's you who seems bothered about the spanish genetic pool for some strange reason. And again, celtics were not nordics. You're statements are turning more and more disturbing and stupider with every new post.

It's you who are in denial, it's you who absolutely want to make a link between genetics and culture.You're statements are turning more and more disturbing and stupider with every new post.

Grizzly
26-03-11, 00:09
Time for a reality check. The entire educated world is against you. You are wasting time and space with your baseless notions

Case closed...

Oh, you mean probably the entire Cambria Red's wonderworld...

Cambrius (The Red)
26-03-11, 02:22
Oh, you mean probably the entire Cambria Red's wonderworld...

How utterly sad you are.