DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
True Left
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Ancient World
*****************************************************
#Post#: 10424--------------------------------------------------
How the Greeks Colonized the Mediterranean
By: guest55 Date: January 6, 2022, 8:28 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]How the Greeks Colonized the Mediterranean - Ancient
Civilizations[/quote]
[quote]Kings and Generals' historical animated documentary
series on the history of Ancient Civilizations and Ancient
Greece continues with a video on how the Greeks colonized the
Mediterranean, as we discuss how the settling process took place
step by step, including consultation with the Oracles, selection
of oikos and the reasons why the mother city was so eager to
send colonists elsewhere.[/quote]
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9HeRf4f7z8
#Post#: 19013--------------------------------------------------
Athenian Democracy Solon and Cleisthenes
By: rp Date: April 24, 2023, 8:14 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://youtu.be/kj2R0rrFSNM
#Post#: 20273--------------------------------------------------
Re: Western Democracy
By: 2ThaSun Date: June 10, 2023, 8:01 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Socrates Was a Bisexual King Who Hated Democracy, So They Killed
Him
[quote]Socrates was the father of philosophy but did you know he
was also bisexual, hated democracy, and sentenced to death via
drinking hemlock poison in the year 399 BC for impiety and
corrupting Athenian youth?? Let's talk about the trial of
Socrates![/quote]
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7SeYl5c8FI
Comment:
[quote]Came for the title, stayed for the absolute BANGER
content[/quote]
;D
#Post#: 20892--------------------------------------------------
Re: How the Greeks Colonized the Mediterranean
By: guest98 Date: July 12, 2023, 2:21 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://nationalpost.com/news/world/jewelry-ornate-pottery-show-3000-year-old-cypriot-city-was-a-key-trading-hub-scientist-says
New discoveries suggest ancient Cypriot city was a key
Mediterranean trading hub, scientist says
[quote]
NICOSIA, Cyprus – New discoveries including gold ornaments and
fine pottery at an ancient port city in Cyprus dating back more
than 3,000 years indicate that the settlement was one of the
Mediterranean’s most important trading posts in the late Bronze
Age, an archeologist said Tuesday.
Professor Peter M. Fischer from the University of Gothenburg,
Sweden, said the city now known as Hala Sultan Tekke because of
its proximity to a famous mosque flourished in 1,630-1,150 B.C.
because of its trade in the “most sought after product at that
time” — plentiful copper mined from the Troodos mountain range.
Some theorize that Cyprus got its name from copper because of
its ancient trade in the metal.
along with Mycenaean pottery, the Cypriot variety was “the most
popular on the ‘intercultural’ market” of the time, reaching as
far as modern-day Spain, Iraq, Turkey and Sudan.
Fischer, who concluded excavations at the site this year, said
evidence now suggests “the great importance” of the ancient
city, rivalling the majesty of Enkomi, considered the most
important Bronze Age Cypriot city because of its unique layout.
He suggested that more fascinating discoveries could be in store
at the Hala Sultan Tekke site because “maybe only 10 per cent”
has been exposed, with recent georadar and magnetometer surveys
showing large building complexes 1-2 metres below the surface.
“The numerous finds of gold, most likely imported from Egypt but
showing mainly Minoan motifs, demonstrate that the Egyptians
received copper in exchange and that the contact with the
Minoan-Mycenaean cultures was intense,” Fischer said in an
email.
Cyprus’ Antiquities Department said other discovered objects
include sophisticated jewelry, daggers, knives, spearheads and a
mirror of bronze. It said several items of ivory and tin-glazed
pottery had been imported from Egypt during the 18th dynasty,
the time of Pharaohs Thutmose III and Eknaton and his wife
Nefertiti.
Another find was Nuragic pottery from Sardinia which showed it
had also traded with Cypriots for copper.
Family tombs containing everyday objects that the deceased could
use in the afterlife as well as items of luxury to show their
wealth were also discovered. Fischer said preliminary results of
DNA testing of the bones confirmed the “multiculturality” of the
city’s inhabitants.
Other discoveries included semiprecious stones such as amber
from the Baltics and lapis lazuli and carnelian from Mesopotamia
and the northern Levant, according to Fischer.
Fischer said the discoveries confirm that the late Bronze Age
was the first “international” period in the Mediterranean.
It’s unclear why the city was abandoned by 1,150 B.C., but
Fischer said the rise of nomadic sea peoples may have
contributed to the city’s downfall, in combination with a
worsening climate and possibly epidemic diseases. The nearby
port city of Kition, founded around 1,300 B.C., picked up the
mantle from Hala Sultan Tekke.
[/quote]
#Post#: 22895--------------------------------------------------
Re: Exposing people with the Western Darwinian Worldview
By: antihellenistic Date: October 19, 2023, 4:21 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The origin of race-science theory
[quote]For Hippocrates, topology and water determine body type,
leading to differences between peoples of bracing, high terrain
and those in low-lying meadows. Lowlanders he posited as broad,
fleshy, and black haired: "they themselves are dark rather than
fair, less subject to phlegm than to bile. Similar bravery and
endurance are not by nature part of their character, but the
imposition of law can produce them artificially." People living
where the water stands stagnant "must show protruding bellies
and enlarged spleens." Where the living is easy, as in the
fertile lowlands, men pay the price in manhood: 􀁔the
inhabitants are fleshy, ill-articulated, moist, lazy, and
generally cowardly in character. Slackness and sleekness can be
observed in them, and so far as the arts are concerned they are
thick-witted, and neither subtle nor sharp. " Generalizing
further about the two types he assumes live in the high country,
Hippocrates believed that those in a level, windy place will be
"large of stature" and 􀁔like to one another; but their
minds will be rather unmanly and gentle." By contrast, those
confined to places where the soil is thin and dry and the
seasons change dramatically "will be hard in physique and
well-braced, fair rather than dark, stubborn and independent in
character and temper. For where the changes of the seasons are
most frequent and most sharply contrasted, there you will find
the greatest diversity in physique, in character, and in
constitution."􀁹
...
Getting to the nub of the matter, Hippocrates' mountainous,
rugged Greece clearly shaped his concepts of its European
penumbra. A land "blasted by the winter and scorched by the
sun," produced handsome men: "hardy, slender, with well-shaped
joints, well-braced, and shaggy." The fierce Greek/European
temperament would seem to explain Greek imperial domination as
well as manly Greek European beauty: for "where the land is
bare, waterless, rough, oppressed by winter's storms and burnt
by the sun, there you will see men who are hard, lean, well
articulated, well􀂆braced, and hairy; such natures will
be found energetic, vigilant, stubborn and independent in
character and in temper, wild rather than tame, of more than
average sharpness and intelligence in the arts, and in war of
more than average courage." 􀂬
Such applause for European hardness would reappear over time,
depending on the exposure of scholars to armies (mercenary and
voluntary) and the relative prestige of militarism, especially
in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, when Americans widely
envied the military might of European colonial powers.[/quote]
...
Hippocrates's pro-democratic worldview
[quote]Not surprisingly, conditions improved closer to home.
Unlike Asians, Hippocrates says, the Europeans/Greeks have no
kings to tell them what to do. (In fact, he conveniently ignores
a complication-that while his Greeks did live in more or less
democratic city-states, warlords ruled the surrounding
barbarians, many also European.) In any case, Hippocrates sings
the praises of European political institutions that encourage
individualism: for "independent people, taking risks on their
own behalf and not on behalf of others, are willing and eager to
go into danger, for they themselves enjoy the prize of victory.
So institutions contribute a great deal to the formation of
courageousness.,,23 Over succeeding millennia, this contrast
between king-ridden Asia and enterprising, individualist Europe
hardened into a trope, even amid redefinitions of Europe and
even though many Europeans remained under the thumb of kings
while others violently overthrew them.[/quote]
Source :
The History of White People, Nell Irvin Painter page 17-18
HTML https://archive.org/details/historyofwhitepe00pain/page/n13/mode/2up
#Post#: 23512--------------------------------------------------
Re: How the Greeks Colonized the Mediterranean
By: antihellenistic Date: November 8, 2023, 5:44 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The Dirty Face of Western Civilization
[quote]The four Hellenistic kingdoms which emerged as
Alexander’s successors (i.e. Macedonia, the Seleucid kingdom in
Mesopotamia, the Ptolemy dynasty in Egypt and the Pergamum
kingdom in western Asia Minor) involved a clash and fusion of
different cultures and ethnic groups. However, the political
elites and high culture of these kingdoms were thoroughly Greek.
The Greek/Macedonian rulers of these kingdoms encouraged the
spread of Greek colonists to the Near East, with the result that
cities were created replicating the architecture and political
institutions of the Hellenic homeland. These new urban centres
were completely dominated by Greeks, while natives remained cut
off from all civic institutions. One scholar describes the
relationship between the Greek/Macedonian elite and the rest of
the population in terms of ‘ethnic segregation’. [48] In the
Seleucid kingdom, which is the Hellenistic kingdom furthest to
the east, only 2.5% of the people in authority were non-Greek,
and most of these were in local military positions. [49] A small
percentage of non-Greeks adopted Greek language, culture and
identity, but barely outside the cities. Hellenistic cities are
best described as islands of Greek culture in a sea of
non-Greeks[/quote]
Source :
Faustian Man in a Multicultural Age by Richardo Duchesne page 92
#Post#: 25367--------------------------------------------------
Re: Western Democracy
By: antihellenistic Date: March 7, 2024, 9:34 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Origins of Democracy and Capitalism part 1
[quote]To start with Hanson’s carefully documented work, The
Other Greeks: ancient Greece was the only Bronze-Age society
that did not consist mostly of peasants in subsistence
agriculture at the mercy of a narrow oligarchy. In small hunting
and gathering societies, including loosely organized tribal
societies, adult members participated in the governance of their
community, which is why anthropologists have described these
societies as “primitive democracies.” But once state-centralized
societies emerged, participation in the decision making process
was reserved only for the king and his closest administrators.
Greece was the first society to combine a centralized city-based
polity with the full civic participation of all adult male
members of the community. This ideal of civic freedom was
sociologically based on the rise of a class of independent
farmers who owned and worked their small-size farms at the end
of the Greek Dark Ages (about 1100–800 B.C.E.). For the next
four centuries (700–300 BCE) these farmers, who on average owned
farms of about 10 acres, became the dominant cultural force.
They were not the majority in absolute numbers – one third to
one half of the adult male free residents of the Greek polis saw
themselves as independent landowners – but they revolutionized
the cultural life of their fellow Greeks. To protect and empower
themselves, this group of yeomen farmers – “an entirely new
phenomenon in history” – cultivated a cultural ethos of
family-centered production on family property, an economic
mentality that emphasized free choice in economic activity and
that favored constitutional government based on local
representation. A voting citizenry of independent farmers thus
came to dominate more than 1,000 small city-states throughout
the Greek-speaking ancient world.20[/quote]
Source :
The Uniqueness of Western Civilization Ricardo Duchesne page 270
- 271
#Post#: 25402--------------------------------------------------
Re: How the Greeks Colonized the Mediterranean
By: antihellenistic Date: March 11, 2024, 1:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Origins of Democracy and Capitalism part 2
[quote]The Founding Fathers of the West: Democratic Citizens or
Aristocratic Warriors?
Among classicists it is almost a truism to say that the West was
inaugurated by democratic citizens in the 6th century BC. The
aristocratic values “extolled by Homer” are deemed to belong to
an archaic past from which the West emerged by moving away from
them.1 With the destruction of Mycenaean “divine kinship” around
1200 BC, it is argued, there came into view, after a long “Dark
Age” which lasted until the middle of the 700s, a government
organized in an open manner by “middling” members of the city,
soldiers, lawmakers, statesmen, and priests. It is claimed that
the West commenced when political power ceased to be the
privilege of a royal palace, when Greece saw a political society
characterized by rational argumentation and consensual
authority. It was in the democratic polis, we are regularly
instructed, that the Western free persona was first visible,
when men of moderate wealth came to view each other as equals,
when one’s merits, fighting abilities, and oral skills, rather
than one’s noble status or priestly lineage, came to determine
one’s social standing. This interpretation clearly recognizes
that the Greek citizen-body was not dominant in numbers and that
wealthy aristocrats continued to play an influential role in the
city-state’s council, despite the emergence of egalitarian
attitudes and institutions. The point is that this
interpretation views the democratic (and rational) citizen, not
the aristocratic (and hubristic) warrior as Greece’s supreme
legacy to Western civilization.
Classicists have also told us that associated with this notion
of citizenship was a new value, Sophrosyne, referring to
moderation or self-restraint, in contrast to the older
aristocratic virtue of arête, which celebrated the martial
virtues of bravery and excellence in warfare (North 1966). It is
worth recalling here that the root of arête is the same as
aristos, a word constantly used in ancient times to refer to the
best warriors. This virtue of moderation, it is argued, was
suitable to the life of democratic discussion in the polis,
which required self-control and “sound mind.” This new virtue
challenged the elitist view of the heroic age as a time when the
social order was under the spell of mighty and turbulent
aristocrats thirsting for glory and plunder without
consideration for the pain and hardship they brought onto the
world. With this new citizen, it is claimed, Greeks came to see
the law as a human rather than as a mysterious-religious
creation; they came to see the laws as amenable to criticism and
change (Lloyd 1979). The new values of moderation and
reasonableness, including the idea that “to be in the middle was
best,” were thus seen as the uniquely crucial values that
inaugurated the West. The French philosopher Nemo (2006: 7–16)
expresses succinctly this consensus writing that the first steps
in the Western tradition were initiated when Greeks started to
condemn traditional aristocratic-Homeric values, “claiming them
to be hubris, the root cause of disorder, injustice and
violence.” He adds that, as these values were rejected, “a new
entity took to the scene: the citizens [which] knew themselves
to be equal to others in law, in reason and in dignity.”2
It is indeed from the Greek world of the 6th century onwards
that we habitually hear scholars speak of the “world’s first
scientific thought,” the “birth of rational man,” the “discovery
of politics,” the “invention of prose,” or the “discovery of the
mind.”3 Even the classicist and military historian Hanson, who
resists a sanitized version of the Greek legacy, and draws
attention to the contributions of robust farmers and hoplite
fighters, argues all the same that “the core values” of Western
culture – rationalism, citizen armies, private property, and
separation between religious and political authorities –
“originated in ancient Greece during the polis period” (1999:
xi–xxiv). Hanson dates the polis period to “the era roughly
between 700 and 300 BC.” He claims that the values of a free
citizen were not linked primarily to the rise of mercantile
classes and urbane thinkers, but to the “the rise of a novel
middling class of autonomous farmers” who owned and worked their
farms of about 10 acres at the end of the Dark Ages (1100–800
BC), and went on in the next four centuries to become the
dominant cultural force in ancient Greece. These “yeomen”
farmers were not the majority in absolute numbers – one-third to
one-half of the adult male free residents of the Greek polis saw
themselves as independent landowners – but they revolutionized
the economic, military, and cultural life of Greece. They
cultivated an ethos of family-centered production, free choice
in economic activity, freedom from arbitrary taxes and rents,
and a mentality which favored constitutional government based on
local representation (1999: 25–45, 179–318).[/quote]
Source :
The Uniqueness of Western Civilization Ricardo Duchesne page 341
- 343
#Post#: 25462--------------------------------------------------
Terrain Effects
By: antihellenistic Date: March 15, 2024, 7:17 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Influence of European Terrain created Inferior Way of Life,
Western Capitalism and Liberal Democracy
[quote]The beginning of Europe’s ascendancy has been dated from
many points: the Industrial Revolution, the modern world
capitalist system, the Renaissance. There is a strong consensus
that the rise of Europe should be sought no earlier than the
Middle Ages, although some still connect it back to Athens. For
Hegel, however, the question was less Europe’s ascendancy than
its uniqueness, which he attributed to its autonomous capacity
for free reflection, a capacity which, in his view, had
descended from the Greeks, and which therefore required for its
explanation a consideration of the origins of Greek uniqueness.
To this day no one knows how to account for the origins of the
“Greek miracle”. In stark contrast to the numerous explanations
which have been offered on all the other major revolutionary
transformations of Europe, no strong or consensual argument has
yet been produced in response to why ancient Greece “discovered
the mind,” discovered the method of causal science, invented the
literary form of tragedy, prose writing, and tapped into the
progressive spirit of critical reason. Many classicists have
offered no more than tautological explanations in which the
explanandum reappears in the explanans: “Greek philosophy grew
out of an exclusive national culture and is the legitimate
offspring of the Greek spirit” (Windelband 1956: 3); “Greek
philosophy has a good claim to be regarded as the most original
and influential achievement of the Greek genius” (Luce 1992: 9).
One influential but rather question-begging explanation is that
Ionia, the birth place of Greek natural philosophy, located in
coastal areas of present-day Turkey, was dotted by mercantile
city-states that looked favorably upon innovation, criticism and
individual expression. The worlds of Assyria, Babylonia, Persia,
and Phoenicia, however, were similarly cosmopolitan, urbane, and
commercial. Some have added that a community of rational inquiry
was made possible by the emergence in Ionia, and in Greece at
large, of a unique institution, the polis. It has been argued
that the polis, by being a free political institution in which
all male citizens were free to participate in the affairs of
their city, promoted a culture characterized by reasoned
discourse and debate, adversarial viewpoints, and a disposition
for seeking out the truth on rational grounds. This idea is
summed-up well by Randall Collins:
The key feature of this situation was the competition that
resulted owing to the presence of many intellectuals selling
their wares to the public. Because they were free intellectual
entrepreneurs, not taking orders in a priestly or government
hierarchy, there was no built-in-bias towards maintaining
tradition. Competition with others meant intellectuals had to
develop new ideas and improve them against rivals’
criticism.During the time when the city-states flourished, there
was an unparalleled situation of free intellectual community
with many markets to exploit; the result was a period of vigor,
which subsequent history has regarded as a Golden Age. The roots
of modern philosophy and science are found in this period; here,
too, we find the beginnings of social science (1994: 6–7).
But why did Ionia-Greece see the rise of a freely-organized
political community in the first place – and not the more
advanced civilizations of the Near East, or, for that matter,
the Sumerian city states which dominated the Mesopotamian
landscape around 2500 BC? Collins simply answers in passing that
the “Greeks retained the crude democracy of tribal war
coalitions” in their city-states (6). The problem here is that
all civilized cultures and cities came originally from tribal
backgrounds and tribal “democracies.” Was there anything unique
to the tribal organization of the Greek city states? I shall
argue that there was. But let us continue, for now, with the
existing lines of investigation.
McClellan and Dorn have tried an explanation which points to the
geographical distinctiveness of Greece. They argue that the
mountainous ecology of Greece, which compartmentalized the land
into separate valleys, encouraged the rise of small independent
city-states. They also contrast Greece’s rainfall farming to the
great rivers and large flood plains of the East. They observe
that the former promoted decentralized economic activities
whereas the latter promoted hydraulic agriculture and
monarchical administrations (1999: 55–59).23
The incompleteness of this explanation is that it presumes that
the “competitiveness” evoked by the presence of hundreds of
city-states produced, on its own, a republican government of
citizen-soldiers. It presumes as well that the mere existence of
independent city-states and citizen-soldiers cultivated an ethos
of free discourse and “a new sort of science” devoted to the
pursuit of “theoretical knowledge”. McClellan and Dorn are
seemingly aware that something is missing in their explanation,
concluding that “it may be impossible to reach an understanding
of exactly why a new scientific culture came into being in the
unique habitat of Hellas” (57).24
What Hegel suggests to me, albeit in a very general way, is that
there were already in Greece – before the polis – characters
unwilling to submit to despotic rule. I will explain below what
I mean by these characters. But in anticipation of this
historically based argument that I intend to elaborate in the
next chapter, let me state for now that the polis was created by
a pre-existing aristocratic culture whose values were physical
prowess, courage, fierce protection of one’s family, friends,
and property, and above all, one’s personal honor and
reputation. The polis grew out of a peculiar social landscape of
tribal republics in which individual rivalry for prestige and
victory had the highest value, and in which hatred of
monarchical government was the norm. Before citizenship was
expanded to include independent farmers and hoplite soldiers,
the Greek mainland was dominated by a warrior aristocracy. This
expansive and aggressive aristocracy was the original persona of
Western civilization.[/quote]
Souce :
The Uniqueness of Western Civilization Ricardo Duchesne page
312- 315
#Post#: 25567--------------------------------------------------
Re: How the Greeks Colonized the Mediterranean
By: antihellenistic Date: March 20, 2024, 11:32 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The Reason on Western Civilization's Ability to Oppress the
World, They Glorify War and Competition
[quote]It can indeed be argued that well before the early modern
era, before the “Military Revolution” of the 1500s, Europeans
were quite innovative in their weaponry, discipline, strategic
reasoning and tactics. As we noted above, Rogers thinks that
“the most dramatic, most truly revolutionary changes in European
military affairs took place” during the Hundred Years’ War
(1993). But, again, why stop with the Middle Ages? What about
Victor Davis Hanson’s thesis that the ancient Greeks initiated a
“Western style of warfare” infused with an “individual” and a
“rational” energy that would engender “the most deadly soldiers
in the history of civilization” (2001)? Hanson is never
mentioned in the revisionist literature; nevertheless, his
thesis has been endorsed by two of the most renowned current
military historians: John Keegan and Parker. Hanson’s argument
is that, sometime between 800–500 BC, the Greeks developed a
style of fighting characterized by i) the use of heavy infantry
in tightly packed linear formations, ii) the training of
soldiers to “take and hold ground and fight face-to-face”, iii)
the pursuit of “decisive” confrontations with the enemy, iv) the
reliance on independent farmers capable of self-arming
themselves, v) the cultivation of a science of warmaking and a
“vibrant body of practical-hands-on military research,”
independently of religious beliefs and constraints, and vi) the
existence of a culture of warfare based on citizens with a
“sense of personal freedom,” “egalitarian camaraderie,” and
“individual initiative” (1989; 2001).
It should become clearer in chapter seven why I think that many
of Lynn’s counter-points can be integrated within a broader
Western way that includes the “aristocratic” and “pastoral”
style of warfare of Indo-European speakers from the Pontic
steppes, and the “berserker” style of the Germanic peoples.
(This broader definition is able to acknowledge the fighting
successes of the Mongols and the Turks, insofar as they were
pastoral warriors from the steppes.) Now I want to say that the
essentials of Hanson’s thesis can be effectively defended in the
(revised) manner Parker has in his “Introduction” and “Epilogue”
to Warfare, Cambridge Illustrated History (2000). He states that
the Western way has rested historically on five basic traits.
The emphasis of the first trait is on superior technology, and
“capital- rather than labor intensive” armies, to compensate for
smaller numbers. This does not mean that the West has always
employed more advanced or effective methods of warfare. Th e
recurved bow used by the horse archers of Central Asia was “far
more effective than any Western weaponry” until the introduction
of musketry volleys and fi eld artillery in the early
seventeenth century (2–9). But the horse archers from Asia never
posed a direct, internal threat to Europe, and when they did it
was not sustained.
In addition to superior technology, the second trait placed an
extremely high premium on discipline, drill and long-term
service – as opposed to kinship or religion – as the primary way
by which to create a cohesive force capable of maintaining its
ground and position while attacking or while being attacked,
without giving in to the natural inclinations of fear and
fright.
The third trait concerns military strategy. Ever since Flavius
Vegetius put together a compendium of Roman military practice
around AD 390 there have been efforts to think in terms of the
“laws of war” – the techniques, strategies, and tactics – for
the achievement of victory. This insistence upon the
systematization of knowledge has come together with an emphasis
on total victory, “decisive battle,” war with the intention to
bring about the utter defeat of the adversary. For Parker,
however, these three traits on their own do not completely
distinguish the West from such cultures as China and Japan,
which also emphasized technology, discipline, and a high degree
of strategic thinking, as evident in the teachings of Sun Tzu.
There were two additional traits. The fourth trait involved
willingness on the part of the West to learn from others and to
meet external challenges in a dynamic, innovative way.
The fifth and final trait was one having to do with an ability
to employ the wealth generated by the economy to finance
warfare. Parker thus points to the multiple polities competing
for power within early modern Europe as having intensified the
need for military innovation at the same time that they
encouraged the rise of centralized states capable of financing
large expensive armies.
In emphasizing these last two traits, Parker is in effect
bringing together his own ideas on the “Military Revolution”
with certain aspects of Hanson’s Western way. He is not explicit
but his overall argument is that, from the ancient Greeks
onward, the West started a style of warfare with “remarkable
consistencies over time” (2000: 365), solidified and improved in
the context of the political fragmentation of early modern
Europe, which placed “a high premium on rapid adaptation and
innovation.” Particularly since 1400, “a series of expensive
technological and tactical revolutions have punctuated the
military history of the West” (367).
Now, while Parker does not deny the many successes of
non-Western armies, he believes that, on balance, the superior
lethality of the Western way was quite evident since the Persian
wars in the 5th century BC when the outnumbered but highly
disciplined Greek hoplites defeated the far larger armies of
Xerxes. It was apparent when Alexander the Great’s army of fewer
than 50,000 destroyed an empire of millions between 334 and 323
BC. Parker sums up his thesis as follows:
The West seldom suffered successful invasion itself. Armies from
Asia and Africa rarely marched into Europe and many of the
exceptions – Xerxes, Hannibal, Attila, the Arabs and the Turks –
achieved only short-term success. None encompassed the total
destruction of their foe. Conversely, western forces, although
numerically inferior, not only defeated the Persian and
Carthaginian invaders but managed to extirpate the states that
sent them. Even the forces of Islam never succeeded in
partitioning Europe into ‘spheres of influence’ in the western
manner (9).[/quote]
Source :
The Uniqueness of Western Civilization by Ricardo Duchesne page
220 - 222
Western Civilization is the most barbaric thing which ever exist
Recall :
[quote]The white races did, of course, give some things to the
natives, and they were the worst gifts that they could possibly
have made, those plagues of our own modern world-materialism,
fanaticism, alcoholism and syphilis. For the rest, since these
peoples possessed qualities of their own which were superior to
anything we could offer them, they have remained essentially
unchanged. Where imposition by force was attempted, the results
were even more disastrous, and common sense, realizing the
futility of such measures, should preclude any recourse to their
introduction. One solitary success must be conceded to the
colonizers: everywhere they have succeeded in arousing hatred, a
hatred that urges these peoples, awakened from their slumbers by
us, to rise and drive us out. - Adolf Hitler, 7th February
1945[/quote]
Source :
Bormann, Martin – Testament of Adolf Hitler (Hitler-Bormann
Documents) Page 13 - 14
In contrast to what things that "blacks" have pride on it
[quote]In Africa, there were rice cultures—each with its own
distinct botanical adaptation according to the topography,
geography, and soil. In the rain-fed upland regions of
present-day Sierra Leone and Liberia, women dropped grains into
shallow holes made by a special hoe, then covered the seeds with
the heels of their feet. In the Senegambian swamps, growers
planted rice in pottery and transferred them to the swamps after
the seedlings grew roots. South of the Gambia River, near
Guinea, African agriculturalists constructed “an elaborate
network of embankments, dikes, canals, and sluice gates that
serves to bar the entry of marine water while retaining rainfall
for field saturation and rice cultivation.”8 And in America, the
embezzled empire-builders from different languages, cultures,
and countries were forced to adapt their ways of knowing to
create an entirely new African-based rice-growing system that
the wealthiest, most “enlightened” white men in the world
couldn’t figure out for themselves.
Since the beginning of this people-stealing project, the slave
system relied mostly on Black males who had the muscle to
perform laborious tasks, and so, like in most slave societies,
men greatly outnumbered women in the colonies. In Virginia’s
Surry County, for instance, there were 145 men for every 100
women in the 1670s.9 But in the South Carolina colonies, the
male-to-female ratio would eventually reach a one-to-one ratio
after plantation owners realized that African women were the
ones who possessed the engineering and agricultural knowledge
necessary to grow what would become known as “Carolina Gold.”
...
Every time these rice plantation owners imported more Africans,
their empire expanded. As historian Peter Wood notes in Black
Majority, “With respect to rice cultivation, particular
know-how, rather than lack of it, was one factor which made
black labor attractive to the English colonists.”13 Some, like
the Draytons, enslaved hundreds, and saw their profits soar as a
result. By the time the first shots of the American Revolution
were fired, Magnolia Plantation had ballooned to 1,872 acres, an
area twice the size of present-day Harlem, with hundreds of head
of livestock that roamed vast acres of “cowpens.” When Nairne
was calculating the exact worth of putting his enslaved females
to work, he also remarked that “South Carolina abounds with
cattle, to a Degree much beyond any other English Colony . . .
People have 1000 head but for a man to have 200 is very
common.”14 And just as the naturally gifted female
horticulturalist “field gals” were adept at growing and
harvesting rice, South Carolinians discovered that slaves from
the plains of Ghana and Gambia were skilled at herding cattle.
Unlike the white “buckaroos”*15 and poor “crackers” who used
whips, the Black cattlemen used salt, fire, and dogs to corral
the livestock when the plantation owners needed to find them
again (usually around tax time), making the “cow boys” as
valuable as the “field gals.”16
And as a result of their ingenuity, hard work, and savvy? These
men and women died.
Life on a rice plantation was so fraught with disease and death
that planters generally didn’t expect their human capital to
live past nineteen.[/quote]
Source :
Black AF History: The Un-Whitewashed Story of America page 59,
60
Recall :
[quote]A negro with his taboos is far superior to a human who
firmly believes in Transubstantiation. - Adolf Hitler, December
13, 1941[/quote]
Source: Adolf Hitler - Table Talk page 146
[quote]The dirt was visible on the blacks only when the
missionaries, in order to teach them decorum, obliged them to
wear clothes. In its natural state, the negro is very clean. For
a missionary, the smell of dirt is agreeable. From this point of
view, they themselves are the dirtiest pigs. They have water
horrors. Adolf Hitler, February 19, 1942[/quote]
Source: Adolf Hitler - Table Talk pages 319 - 320
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page