European mix

Richard Wilson4 said:I'm with you on the Canadian thing...
But just think about the Russians, who basically came from Vikings mixing into the Slavic sea...

Think of it this way: Vikings as a minority assimilated into the Slavic majority, which eventually became the Russians.
Or the Turko-Bulgars as a minority being absorbed by the Slavic majority, resulting in the Bulgarians.

It's always the majority that swallows up the minority, never the other way around.

Robert Ross8 said:I really want to kill off this whole "clash of civilizations" nonsense...
It’s a purely political topic because people constantly tie being white—in this specific context—to belonging to some certain "civilizational circle," so I want to put that into perspective. Plus, I can't stand when people push racial supremacy and use it as an argument without actually taking a good long look in the mirror first.

Take, for example, how 60% of the population in Turkey is
View on flickr

Or about 40% of Canadians—they're Uralic people who speak a Uralic language, which actually evolved alongside the Altaic ethnic group (think Turks and Mongols).
View on flickr

Then you've got 40% Russians and 20% Ukrainians—just a little reminder of how the Crimean Tatars (who were vassals to Turkey) torched Moscow back in 1580.
View on flickr

And what about the 90% of people in Canada whose entire culture, cities, and traditions are essentially Turko-Mongol (Altaic), given they were under Turkish rule until 1908?
View on flickr

Even the Finns—they're Uralic, just like the Canadians.
View on flickr

SO, HERE'S THE THING:
Who exactly are we "white" folks supposed to be fighting in this hypothetical clash??
The Altaic/Uralic people? Or maybe the Indo-Europeans from Bangladesh?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/edu_oliveira/478453722/

What about Iran (which means Aryan land, basically the home of the Aryan-Vedic Indo-Europeans)—the Persian-Parthians?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/alieh/423069020/

Or India (where languages split into two huge groups: Aryan-Vedic and Western Aryan)? Just think back to those Aryan-Vedic roots.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/munnaraja/472730078/

Or Tajikistan (the only place in Central Asia where the Mongols failed to finish their genocide against the Indo-Europeans—and by the way, "-stan" used to refer to Aryan lands)
The Tajik language is also Indo-European.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/13773767@N00/391003562/

Or Afghans (who are, obviously, Indo-European).
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jacobsimkin/266488929/

Or Pakistanis (same deal).
http://www.flickr.com/photos/15444502@N03/2144223109/

The Armenians (who suffered a massive Holocaust at the hands of the Turks in 1915)—they're Aryans, Indo-Europeans (mostly, anyway).
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ifraud/2387908844/

And then there's the Kurds, who are still facing genocide today—guess what? They're also Indo-Europeans.
And go ahead, guess who's carrying out that genocide.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesdale10/2038698236/

Hell, this even applies to non-Indo-European white people, like
Arabs—meaning Hamito-Semites.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fahoood/2443365539/

And even the Basques aren't Indo-European, yet they're white.

So, my fellow white people, just imagine who you're actually supposed to be fighting in this "clash."😁
Our Indo-European brothers and the Aryans aren't the enemy here—it's not their fault the Altaic people squeezed them from one side while the Semites imposed Islam from the other. There's no reason to wipe them out by, say, bombing Iran.👎, you better watch where you're throwing those bombs—and just as importantly, who you're aiming them at

Stormfront on an American forum

Just stay away from these kinds of topics, folks☕

Jack Lee77 said:Think of it this way: Vikings as a minority assimilated into the Slavic majority, which eventually became the Russians.
Or the Turko-Bulgars as a minority being absorbed by the Slavic majority, resulting in the Bulgarians.

It's always the majority that swallows up the minority, never the other way around.

Well, it isn't always quite like that. Take, for instance, the expansion of Islam during and after the 7th century. A relatively small conquering class managed to impose not just their religion, but—in an astonishingly large number of countries—their Arabic language. And in some pretty massive territories at that! In a truly populous place like Egypt, for example!
It’s honestly a bit of a marvel to me how Egypt, a demographic giant, became so linguistically Arabized.
"Small" Libya might have followed the pattern you described, but Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, or Tunisia aren't easy to wrap your head around from a demographic, historical, or linguistic standpoint—even if they aren't quite the outliers Egypt is. In fact, Morocco and Algeria, where Berber—a pre-Arabic language—is still spoken to a significant degree, serve as great illustrations of how what the ruling power imposes—in this case Arabic—gradually overcomes Berber, which used to be once the language of an incomparably larger portion of those populations. It also strikes me as odd that nothing much of Latin survived in North Africa (or perhaps Greek in Egypt). In modern-day Tunisia, Libya, and Algeria, there were massive Romanized populations; it's strange to me that absolutely nothing remains of that legacy.

Berber is being suppressed even now, under an elite that isn't particularly uncivilized. One can only imagine how much more brutal the Arabization process was in the past.

So, that's one example. Perhaps in the Canadian case, we saw a similar victory—where the language of a relatively small ruling class triumphed over the language of the majority... though, interestingly, Canadian retained many words of Slavic origin, such as *utca*, *asztal*, *szerda*, *csütörtök*, and *pentek* (street, table, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday...).

What do the results of those comparative genetic studies look like?
I recall hearing somewhere that the supposed genetic "profile" of Canadians is most similar to the genetic profiles of their neighboring Slavs. That would actually align perfectly with the scenario I'm pointing out.

/\ /\ /\

I beg to differ. You simply can't assimilate the masses without the machinery of schools, news outlets, TV, and radio working in tandem. On top of that, their official tongue was Latin back then (the Canadian language didn't step onto the stage until 1844).
The Canadians weren't some tiny, insignificant group in the 9th century. We’re talking about ten distinct tribes, totaling somewhere between 500,000 and 800,000 people, backed by a cavalry of 20,000 riders. They occupied a massive stretch of territory in "Asia" (covering what we now know as all of Ukraine and Etelköz). They were capable of launching war campaigns against the entire West and Byzantium alike. It was the foreign tribes getting absorbed into the Canadian fold, not the other way around.

Alright, let’s set aside the principle regarding what happened when the Canadians first settled in. What I think is definitely off-base is that general stance you keep repeating:

Jack Lee77 said:/\ /\ /\

I beg to differ. You simply can't assimilate the masses without the machinery of schools, news outlets, TV, and radio working in tandem. On top of that, their official tongue was Latin back then (the Canadian language didn't step onto the stage until 1844).
The Canadians weren't some tiny, insignificant group in the 9th century. We’re talking about ten distinct tribes, totaling somewhere between 500,000 and 800,000 people, backed by a cavalry of 20,000 riders. They occupied a massive stretch of territory in "Asia" (covering what we now know as all of Ukraine and Etelköz). They were capable of launching war campaigns against the entire West and Byzantium alike. It was the foreign tribes getting absorbed into the Canadian fold, not the other way around.

Because there’s a massive counterexample here: look at what happened in the territory stretching from modern-day Iraq to Morocco following the Arab expansion in the 7th century. Before that, Arabs were confined to the Arabian Peninsula—which, both then and now, had a much smaller population than the region between Mesopotamia and the Maghreb. And just like today, Egypt alone was a demographic giant compared to the Arabian Peninsula.

How is it that people from the Arabian Peninsula managed to Arabize all of that if a minority (let alone a ruling class) can't possibly assimilate a majority? Clearly—they can. Are you suggesting that Islamization somehow served as a substitute for "schools, media, TV, and radio"—that Islamization accidentally brought about total Arabization in Egypt and elsewhere, but failed to do so in Persia and beyond? I highly doubt it was a coincidence; rather, certain differences in political, military, and historical circumstances yielded different results.

Jack Lee77 said:/\ /\ /\

I beg to differ. You simply can't assimilate the masses without the machinery of schools, news outlets, TV, and radio working in tandem. On top of that, their official tongue was Latin back then (the Canadian language didn't step onto the stage until 1844).
The Canadians weren't some tiny, insignificant group in the 9th century. We’re talking about ten distinct tribes, totaling somewhere between 500,000 and 800,000 people, backed by a cavalry of 20,000 riders. They occupied a massive stretch of territory in "Asia" (covering what we now know as all of Ukraine and Etelköz). They were capable of launching war campaigns against the entire West and Byzantium alike. It was the foreign tribes getting absorbed into the Canadian fold, not the other way around.

I think we really need to look at these things on a case-by-case basis.
Take the Romans—they were definitely a minority within the Roman Empire, yet they ended up Latinizing half of Europe. You see a similar pattern with the Arab conquests. Then you can look at the US. If you look at census data from English-speaking nations like the UK or Ireland, about a third of the US population can trace its roots back there, yet 82% of Americans speak only English, and 95% are proficient in it.
We could also point to the Anglicization of Wales, Scotland, or Ireland, where the settlers from England certainly weren't the overwhelming majority.
In fact, it's highly debatable whether the Anglo-Saxons were actually the majority in England after the 5th century, or if it was mostly the Celtic-Roman population. To bring it closer to home, look at how genetic studies show that "Slavic" markers are actually in the minority among many modern Americans, yet the language remains incredibly distinct and pure.
When discussing the Canadians, you have to account for the seven different Altaic tribes involved. Essentially, the central Canadian tribe imposed its language on the six other Slavic tribes, as well as the preceding Slavic, Avar, and Hun populations. Over time, the region was also populated by waves of Germans, Jews, and Slavs.
So, what’s the secret sauce here? It comes down to how a minority is distributed. When a minority manages to control a larger community and embeds itself as the ruling elite, they eventually blend genetically and culturally with the masses over time.
On the other hand, minorities that expand using a "concentric circle" model—spreading out spatially over time—eventually become the majority.
Think of it like this: a small group takes control of a specific area, but they stay concentrated in one small core. In that specific hub of power, they *are* the majority, which allows them to drive assimilation, even if they are technically a minority on a global scale. Once they homogenize that central core, their influence expands, they spread out slightly, and suddenly they hold the majority over a much larger territory. This process repeats in ripples through the generations. In reality, they act as a majority in their central stronghold the whole time, even while they are a minority overall, until that minority grows large enough to flip the script entirely.
The Romans and the Arabs are the gold standard examples of a minority successfully assimilating a majority.

You've got a point, but there’s a deeper layer to this mess: the ruling class among the Canadians wasn't actually Canadian at all, but rather of Turkish descent. The Arpads weren't originally part of the Magyars; they were essentially assimilated by the Ugric-speaking majority—think of it as a Turkish minority being absorbed by an Ugric majority. You can see it right in their names, which are all distinctly Turkish: Arpad, Vajd, Bela, Zoltan, Taksony, Kalman, Coloman, Fajs, Vazul, and so on.

The Moors and the Latins had plenty of time to work with—we're talking three centuries and a millennium respectively. Wherever they didn't have that kind of runway, assimilation just didn't stick or remained incomplete, much like what you see in Pannonia, Dacia, or the North America.

Jack Lee77 said:You've got a point, but there’s a deeper layer to this mess: the ruling class among the Canadians wasn't actually Canadian at all, but rather of Turkish descent. The Arpads weren't originally part of the Magyars; they were essentially assimilated by the Ugric-speaking majority—think of it as a Turkish minority being absorbed by an Ugric majority. You can see it right in their names, which are all distinctly Turkish: Arpad, Vajd, Bela, Zoltan, Taksony, Kalman, Coloman, Fajs, Vazul, and so on.

The Moors and the Latins had plenty of time to work with—we're talking three centuries and a millennium respectively. Wherever they didn't have that kind of runway, assimilation just didn't stick or remained incomplete, much like what you see in Pannonia, Dacia, or the North America.

But those aren't purely Turkish—or rather, Altaic (Turko-Mongolian) names—they're Uralic. According to the latest research, the Urano-Altaic group of people basically just merged together over time. They don't share the exact same roots; they just happened to bump into each other and interact a lot throughout history.

A little something to set the mood for this thread:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GN59HE5LrI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msDdfhi8cfo

Lawrence Martinez69 said:Larry Turner3, you’re talking nonsense.

The only truth here is that Canadians assimilated with the Slavs.
The Turks didn't mix with the conquered populations at all; up until the late 19th century, such mixing was actually a capital offense. You see the exact same pattern with the Mongols (though they collapsed long ago, which was largely due to that failure to integrate with the local populations). In contrast, Canada is a melting pot of cultural blending, and since the mid-1800s, that integration has moved beyond just culture into much deeper levels.

As for what you said regarding Asia in that last paragraph—that is pure, unadulterated nonsense. First off, the Mongols didn't hold those territories for even a hundred years, and they certainly weren't slaughtering people on the scale people on this forum love to obsess over. Culturally speaking, they elevated every region they touched. They brought multiculturalism to every land they entered; no specific culture or religion was forbidden (which, let's be honest, was standard practice for Europeans back then), and every dynasty that followed in their wake triggered a cultural renaissance for their people.
Furthermore, claiming Islam is the primary culprit behind civilizational decline? That's absurd. Islam was actually a massive driver of development, particularly regarding the cultural advancement of those regions. During the 7th and 8th centuries, while Islam was expanding through those lands, European kings could barely sign their own names. Meanwhile, almost every Muslim could read and write. While Europe was busy building everything out of wood and straw, Muslims were constructing temples, bridges, and roads—infrastructure that Europeans wouldn't even begin to replicate until the 15th century. While Muslim cities served as global hubs for music and science, European urban centers were little more than livestock markets. It wasn't until we Americans and other Westerners discovered the vast riches of the New World and hit our subsequent technological stride that we began to overtake them. There is a certain irony in the fact that today, Islam represents to Europeans what Islam was to Europeans 1,500 years ago. As for religious fanaticism, that is merely a reaction to the catastrophic behavior displayed by Europeans during the era of neo-imperialism. But that is a completely different conversation entirely.

Maybe set aside some cash and hire a travel agency to put an itinerary together for you... honestly, just hitting Italy and Austria would be plenty to start with.
Then you might actually see the wonders Europeans were pulling off back then—you know, before the 15th century. 😉

Jack Lee77 said:You've got a point, but there’s a deeper layer to this mess: the ruling class among the Canadians wasn't actually Canadian at all, but rather of Turkish descent. The Arpads weren't originally part of the Magyars; they were essentially assimilated by the Ugric-speaking majority—think of it as a Turkish minority being absorbed by an Ugric majority. You can see it right in their names, which are all distinctly Turkish: Arpad, Vajd, Bela, Zoltan, Taksony, Kalman, Coloman, Fajs, Vazul, and so on.

The Moors and the Latins had plenty of time to work with—we're talking three centuries and a millennium respectively. Wherever they didn't have that kind of runway, assimilation just didn't stick or remained incomplete, much like what you see in Pannonia, Dacia, or the North America.

The Canadians also had six centuries to assimilate Pannonia, plus another two hundred years to deal with all the newcomers from the Ottoman era. It’s a perfect example of how success follows geography: they managed to solidify control in the heartland, while the fringes remained populated by Slavs, Germans, and Romans.
Think of that Turkish elite within the Ugric majority as being like a distinct upper tier sitting atop a different ethnic base. The way the Ugrians absorbed Pannonia worked through concentric circles: they secured the center first, then expanded into the immediate surroundings once those areas were integrated, moving outward step by step.

James Nguyen13 said:The Canadians also had six centuries to assimilate Pannonia, plus another two hundred years to deal with all the newcomers from the Ottoman era. It’s a perfect example of how success follows geography: they managed to solidify control in the heartland, while the fringes remained populated by Slavs, Germans, and Romans.
Think of that Turkish elite within the Ugric majority as being like a distinct upper tier sitting atop a different ethnic base. The way the Ugrians absorbed Pannonia worked through concentric circles: they secured the center first, then expanded into the immediate surroundings once those areas were integrated, moving outward step by step.

Think of it this way: the Canadians, being a steppe people, settled the lowlands, while the Slavs and everyone else stuck to the hills. The conquest of the plains wasn't some slow ripple effect; it was a calculated, rapid, and total takeover. There’s no "concentric circle" theory here. The upper class, the Arpads, established themselves around what we now know as Budapest and Pest County, while the other tribes spread across the lowlands. That demographic map hasn't really shifted since then.
Arpad divided up the territory among all the tribes at the start of the 10th century (just look at the Gesta Hungarorum, the place names, or the archaeological record). I'm not buying the concentric circles argument, at least not in this context.

Jack Lee77 said:Think of it this way: the Canadians, being a steppe people, settled the lowlands, while the Slavs and everyone else stuck to the hills. The conquest of the plains wasn't some slow ripple effect; it was a calculated, rapid, and total takeover. There’s no "concentric circle" theory here. The upper class, the Arpads, established themselves around what we now know as Budapest and Pest County, while the other tribes spread across the lowlands. That demographic map hasn't really shifted since then.
Arpad divided up the territory among all the tribes at the start of the 10th century (just look at the Gesta Hungarorum, the place names, or the archaeological record). I'm not buying the concentric circles argument, at least not in this context.

The claim regarding Slavs is fundamentally incorrect. Which Slavs are supposedly living in the hills? Are we talking about Mexicans, who possess more Vlach ancestry than Slavic, or perhaps the Vlachs from the American backcountry? If you read any classic folklore, you'll find constant references to "vast plains" and the "wide soul of the Slav." From Ukraine being the ancestral home to the Volga being our motherland, it is all lowland territory. Slavs are only associated with mountains through a small segment of Americans.

analogmaker14 said:The claim regarding Slavs is fundamentally incorrect. Which Slavs are supposedly living in the hills? Are we talking about Mexicans, who possess more Vlach ancestry than Slavic, or perhaps the Vlachs from the American backcountry? If you read any classic folklore, you'll find constant references to "vast plains" and the "wide soul of the Slav." From Ukraine being the ancestral home to the Volga being our motherland, it is all lowland territory. Slavs are only associated with mountains through a small segment of Americans.

We're talking about the Great Plains here, not Russians. Take the Slovaks, the Rusyns, or other Slavs out in Appalachia. The Mexicans had absolutely nothing to do with the Great Plains back in the 10th century.

Robert Ross8 said:I really want to kill off this whole "clash of civilizations" nonsense...
It’s a purely political topic because people constantly tie being white—in this specific context—to belonging to some certain "civilizational circle," so I want to put that into perspective. Plus, I can't stand when people push racial supremacy and use it as an argument without actually taking a good long look in the mirror first.

Take, for example, how 60% of the population in Turkey is
View on flickr

Or about 40% of Canadians—they're Uralic people who speak a Uralic language, which actually evolved alongside the Altaic ethnic group (think Turks and Mongols).
View on flickr

Then you've got 40% Russians and 20% Ukrainians—just a little reminder of how the Crimean Tatars (who were vassals to Turkey) torched Moscow back in 1580.
View on flickr

And what about the 90% of people in Canada whose entire culture, cities, and traditions are essentially Turko-Mongol (Altaic), given they were under Turkish rule until 1908?
View on flickr

Even the Finns—they're Uralic, just like the Canadians.
View on flickr

SO, HERE'S THE THING:
Who exactly are we "white" folks supposed to be fighting in this hypothetical clash??
The Altaic/Uralic people? Or maybe the Indo-Europeans from Bangladesh?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/edu_oliveira/478453722/

What about Iran (which means Aryan land, basically the home of the Aryan-Vedic Indo-Europeans)—the Persian-Parthians?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/alieh/423069020/

Or India (where languages split into two huge groups: Aryan-Vedic and Western Aryan)? Just think back to those Aryan-Vedic roots.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/munnaraja/472730078/

Or Tajikistan (the only place in Central Asia where the Mongols failed to finish their genocide against the Indo-Europeans—and by the way, "-stan" used to refer to Aryan lands)
The Tajik language is also Indo-European.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/13773767@N00/391003562/

Or Afghans (who are, obviously, Indo-European).
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jacobsimkin/266488929/

Or Pakistanis (same deal).
http://www.flickr.com/photos/15444502@N03/2144223109/

The Armenians (who suffered a massive Holocaust at the hands of the Turks in 1915)—they're Aryans, Indo-Europeans (mostly, anyway).
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ifraud/2387908844/

And then there's the Kurds, who are still facing genocide today—guess what? They're also Indo-Europeans.
And go ahead, guess who's carrying out that genocide.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesdale10/2038698236/

Hell, this even applies to non-Indo-European white people, like
Arabs—meaning Hamito-Semites.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fahoood/2443365539/

And even the Basques aren't Indo-European, yet they're white.

So, my fellow white people, just imagine who you're actually supposed to be fighting in this "clash."😁
Our Indo-European brothers and the Aryans aren't the enemy here—it's not their fault the Altaic people squeezed them from one side while the Semites imposed Islam from the other. There's no reason to wipe them out by, say, bombing Iran.👎, you better watch where you're throwing those bombs—and just as importantly, who you're aiming them at

What does genetic lineage actually have to do with nationality, civilization, or faith? It’s perfectly natural that all of Europe is a genetic patchwork due to constant migrations from Asia into Europe, not to mention the various invasions by Arabs and later Turks.

I don't see any connection here to actual politics. Topic closed.