Dutch are Nazi remnants - Erdogan

[Spike]

28 minutes ago, SirBalon said:

History is made up of choices as life is. To say that the inhabitants of the land we now call the Americas weren't invaded actually leads me to believe you feel the same about those that were turned into mad "drunks" in Australia. 

In your post you've just admitted that North America is a region ruled by moments in time. Who cares who ended up victors in the latter years and who those that write books want to promote in their national cultural manifesto. I leave that to those that have a superiority complex to be honest because it's boring. 

So you believe that the first settlers sallied forth to Plymouth Rock with the intention of engaging in armed combat with the Natives of what is now known as 'New England'? No it wasn't an invasion, an invasion is the German invasion of Poland in 1939, this was a colonisation; the 'the action or process of settling among and establishing control over the indigenous people of an area.'  If you want to say it was an invasion, fine but I stand by the difference in language that 'invasion' and 'colonisation' implies. I feel nothing for the 'mad drunks' of Australia, just like I feel nothing for the Anglo-Saxons when William the Conqueror decided to invade England. Do you feel a sense of regret when your Asturian forebears 'reconquered' Iberia from the Al-Andalusians? What about the people of East-Germany? They were 'Hispanic' before both the Asturians and Al-Anduas people. Do you honestly believe that the Sioux people were the first and only people to inhabit the Great Plains of North-America? Do you honestly believe throughout the entire history of humanity that another tribe hasn't perished before another? What about in the Middle-East? Before the Arabic conquest, there was no Islam or Arabic nations, just a bunch of yurts in the desert.

Why is their a sense of 'shame' about the colonies? Civilsations rise and fall, whether it be through 'colonisation' or 'invasion' people are always replaced by a stronger peoples and culture. I do believe their should always be a distinction between, 'invade' and 'colonisation', they are very similar words but the context should always be considered. Invasion is 'militant', colonisation isn't, but that isn't saying that 'colonisation' is peaceful; far from it.

If a group of Gypsies set up a shanty-town on the outskirts on your town, would they be invaders? 

I wouldn't say Prussia was multi-cultural because of the 'moments in time' it was inhabited by Germans and Pollacks. Prussia was German, it was founded by Germans for Germans.

[Spike]

3 minutes ago, SirBalon said:

Oh, and you also forgot to add California in the Spanish thing which in total makes up for a very much dominating land mass of the US of A. And indeed Spanish is still much of the makeup (apart from the names of its towns and cities) of the underlying culture (obviously except for the uneducated red necks. 

You mean how they use the American system of government, speak English and share a very similar culture to the east-coast? Riiiiight. Sounds like you are the cultural 'superiority complex '. Of course California has a Spanish undertone, except for the shitty rednecks! They could never have that.

California had a sub-100,000 population before America acquired it. Shortly afterwards it was dominated by American culture, nearly a 400% increase through manifest destiny. Whatever 'Spanish' influence was there became the minority as another culture became the majority. Even up until the year 2000 California was over 80% non-Hispanic. In the 70s, it was 90% white-American (non-Hispanic).

[Spike]

The Turdetani are the REAL Spanish.

[Panflute]

1 hour ago, Spike said:

Wrong. America for most of it's history was English and Dutch.

Still not homogenous, sparky.

[Spike]

Just now, Panflute said:

Still not homogenous, sparky.

Then no nation is. Maybe save for North Korea.

[SirBalon]

57 minutes ago, Spike said:

The Turdetani are the REAL Spanish.

The Turdetani have nothing to do with me or my people mate. As for the rest you posted before... everything said shows North America has no firm culture of any kind. 

[Panflute]

2 minutes ago, Spike said:

Then no nation is. Maybe save for North Korea.

Are we going to pretend that a colony ever had the same homogeneity as a European nation?

[Spike]

10 minutes ago, SirBalon said:

The Turdetani have nothing to do with me or my people mate. As for the rest you posted before... everything said shows North America has no firm culture of any kind. 

They were there before your people. So were the Romans, Celtiberians, Al-Anduas, Visigoths, etc. If anything that proves Spani has no firm culture of any kind and more of an undercurrent of people that were there before. The Catalans? The Castillans? The Galicians? I'd say historically East and West coast USA have a lot more in common than Catalonia and Basque country.

How does, my post infer that? 

[Spike]

6 minutes ago, Panflute said:

Are we going to pretend that a colony ever had the same homogeneity as a European nation?

Then what are the Netherlands? A bunch of Flemish, Walloons, Dutch and Frisians? 
When Australia confederated it was 98% of British origin (another amalgamation of people, like the Netherlands). That's really as close as you're gonna get to homogeneity. Just like America, a bunch of Dutch and Brits from a small area in Europe, maybe not the textbook definition of 'homogenous' but it's a lot closer than the 'diversity' number being touted by Americans today. Maybe, I just used the wrong word.

[Panflute]

32 minutes ago, Spike said:

Then what are the Netherlands? A bunch of Flemish, Walloons, Dutch and Frisians? 
When Australia confederated it was 98% of British origin (another amalgamation of people, like the Netherlands). That's really as close as you're gonna get to homogeneity. Just like America, a bunch of Dutch and Brits from a small area in Europe, maybe not the textbook definition of 'homogenous' but it's a lot closer than the 'diversity' number being touted by Americans today. Maybe, I just used the wrong word.

The Netherlands up until recently was a country home to white Western Europeans who slowly assimilated into the established local culture. We didn't have an indigenous population which we had to subject first, nor did we have pioneers from all over Europe enter the country in droves within a short period of time. There is a reason the völkisch nationalism that the Germans inherited from their feudalistic past never got a foothold in the US.

[Spike]

16 minutes ago, Panflute said:

The Netherlands up until recently was a country home to white Western Europeans who slowly assimilated into the established local culture. We didn't have an indigenous population which we had to subject first, nor did we have pioneers from all over Europe enter the country in droves within a short period of time. There is a reason the völkisch nationalism that the Germans inherited from their feudalistic past never got a foothold in the US.

Surely the first people that lived could be called the 'indigenous population'? Since we don't know of those people, surely we could state the the Belgae tribes of third century BC were the first significant civilisation of the Netherlands, ergo the indigenous people? What makes those tribes any different to the Cherokee's of South-East USA? Since they are the first we know of we consider them the 'indigenous tribe' of that region but surely throughout the history of humanity they cannot be the only tribe of people to exist within that region? The only tribe to live there?

Europe has a history of reconquering and conquering ad nauseum. Since the known history of Europe goes back much further the details get murkier. All we know of many Native tribes is from the 16th century forwards, so it is far easier to state they are the original inhabitants.

Yes, Germans immigrated in the 1820 onwards. But by then America had already existed for over fifty years (an entire generation) and before that the colonies had existed a further one-hundred and fifty years. So that is nearly two-hundred years of people (mainly the Brits, with a few odd bits and bobs) creating their own culture. 

[Panflute]

6 minutes ago, Spike said:

Surely the first people that lived could be called the 'indigenous population'? Since we don't know of those people, surely we could state the the Belgae tribes of third century BC were the first significant civilisation of the Netherlands, ergo the indigenous people? What makes those tribes any different to the Cherokee's of South-East USA? Since they are the first we know of we consider them the 'indigenous tribe' of that region but surely throughout the history of humanity they cannot be the only tribe of people to exist within that region? The only tribe to live there?

Europe has a history of reconquering and conquering ad nauseum. Since the known history of Europe goes back much further the details get murkier. All we know of many Native tribes is from the 16th century forwards, so it is far easier to state they are the original inhabitants.

Yes, Germans immigrated in the 1820 onwards. But by then America had already existed for over fifty years (an entire generation) and before that the colonies had existed a further one-hundred and fifty years. So that is nearly two-hundred years of people (mainly the Brits, with a few odd bits and bobs) creating their own culture. 

That's semantics. When you go back far enough, indigenous population becomes a nebulous concept. The fact stands that the US was not built on a singular ethnic identity, and it embraced Enlightenment-inspired ideals such as individualism, meritocracy and democracy. Meanwhile, in a country like Germany a person's status was determined through centuries of bloodlines (as opposed to 'a whole generation' in the US), hence why völkisch nationalism (not a German word by coincidence) emerged there whereas the US adopted state nationalism and its correspondent idea of the 'malleable' society.

[Spike]

40 minutes ago, Panflute said:

That's semantics. When you go back far enough, indigenous population becomes a nebulous concept. The fact stands that the US was not built on a singular ethnic identity, and it embraced Enlightenment-inspired ideals such as individualism, meritocracy and democracy. Meanwhile, in a country like Germany a person's status was determined through centuries of bloodlines (as opposed to 'a whole generation' in the US), hence why völkisch nationalism (not a German word by coincidence) emerged there whereas the US adopted state nationalism and its correspondent idea of the 'malleable' society.

Then what 'ethnic identities' founded America? English was the language, the men that wrote the Constitution were of dominantly English heritage (save for Jay), the were all of reformed-Christian religious backgrounds (Protestant, Anglican, Huguenot), they were all born in British America, save for Hamilton, as he was born in British Indes. So they all share a similar culture, linguistic, religious and heritage to only a few nations in a very small part of the word (western-Europe). Yes, that isn't ethnic homogeneity (but that is an impossibility, no? I retract that remark, it was poorly worded), but they all share the same cultural and philsophical identity, freedom and liberty. The constitutions is what defines America, culturally and historically, until you experience what the USA, you cannot really understand the importance of those founding fathers. The USA was not founded by Spaniards in Florida, California and Texas, it was not founded by French Louisianians, it was not founded by the Native tribes, the ground-work was laid out by majority British settlers and Dutch settlers, some Germans, some French, but the nation itself was founded by several men that shared the same ethnic, religious and cultural roots. They weren't Frenchmen, the weren't Brits, and they weren't Dutchmen anymore, they were the sons of those people, they had become something else and founded America.

You have to ask, where did they enlightened ideals come from? I'm not arguing that America was built on the back of 'one ethnicity, one goal' but it was coincidentally founded by people of very similar heritage and very similar culture. The englightened ideals are western-European, especially British, French, Dutch, German, etc. They aren't Spanish, they aren't Italian, they aren't Greek, Chinese, Japanese, Kenyan or Syrian. It is no coincidence that the few people that did create America can trace their roots back to a very small part of the world. Throughout the first 200 years of the USA and colonies they were the majority of the people and are the Dutch and English really that radically different, as opposed to the Italians and Ukranians? Or Spanish and Egyptians?

 

 

[Spike]

I'm not saying that many different people didn't become American, but that the first Americans, the founders were largely all the same ethnicity.

[SirBalon]

1 hour ago, Spike said:

They were there before your people. So were the Romans, Celtiberians, Al-Anduas, Visigoths, etc. If anything that proves Spani has no firm culture of any kind and more of an undercurrent of people that were there before. The Catalans? The Castillans? The Galicians? I'd say historically East and West coast USA have a lot more in common than Catalonia and Basque country.

How does, my post infer that? 

No Al-Andalus in Northern Spain mate.  You seem to have gotten your history all mixed up.  Iberia is one of the most remarkable lands in all of Europe because of its defined cultures.  You have these differences in most countries in Europe but none so defined as in Spain and that go back to when a lot of Europe was still running in rags.

[Spike]

12 minutes ago, SirBalon said:

No Al-Andalus in Northern Spain mate.  You seem to have gotten your history all mixed up.  Iberia is one of the most remarkable lands in all of Europe because of its defined cultures.  You have these differences in most countries in Europe but none so defined as in Spain and that go back to when a lot of Europe was still running in rags.

Incorrect. They held nearly the entirety of what is Gallicia today. Their peak during the 8th century as the Ummayad Caliphate (at this point Al-Andalus was the province of that Caliphate) owned nearly all of the peninsula.

Oh, there is huge cultural and regional differences in America (I've experienced them) they all in general conform to an over-arching 'American culture'. You'll examine huge difference in attitude, politics, 

Earlier you pointed out the difference in yourself (a Galician) and the Turdentani but were more than quick to lump the Natives of North America as the 'orignal Americans' despite the fact they had as many, if not less relations to eachother than Galicians and Turdetani.

[SirBalon]

Just now, Spike said:

Incorrect. They held nearly the entirety of what is Gallicia today. Their peak during the 8th century as the Ummayad Caliphate (at this point Al-Andalus was the province of that Caliphate) owned nearly all of the peninsula.

Oh, there is huge cultural and regional differences in America (I've experienced them) they all in general conform to an over-arching 'American culture'. You'll examine huge difference in attitude, politics, 

No mate, they had nothing to do with Galicia and the furthest the got up was in the battle of Covadonga.  Don't read Wikipedia too much mate.

Anyway...  This is going nowhere.  You dismiss what you have wanted to dismiss on the American detail by going to the final dominant force while what I'm saying is that America has no culture...  None whatsoever!  It is a mixture of all sorts of things because too much happened in such a short space of time.  The same with all relatively new nations.

[Spike]

13 minutes ago, SirBalon said:

No mate, they had nothing to do with Galicia and the furthest the got up was in the battle of Covadonga.  Don't read Wikipedia too much mate.

Anyway...  This is going nowhere.  You dismiss what you have wanted to dismiss on the American detail by going to the final dominant force while what I'm saying is that America has no culture...  None whatsoever!  It is a mixture of all sorts of things because too much happened in such a short space of time.  The same with all relatively new nations.

Nonsense, no culture has been created in a vacuum. Catalonian culture isn't the same as it was 1000 years ago, it has adopted ideas from other cultures, abandoned traditions for others. Culture isn't some trophy that old countries win. America is distinctly different to the people the founded it, to how it was fifty years ago and what it will be in fifty years. The same goes for Spain and the rest of the world. It is unbearingly arrogant to suggest the American has no culture. Culture is a fluid and evolving chain of events, memes and ideas. From what I'm reading you are just another stereotypical European dismissive of America without even understanding what it is and you've given me no reasoning or evidence to suggest otherwise just 'America is young, it has no culture'.

I wasn't reading wiki, mate. I was reading excerpts from the University of Chicago. https://cmes.uchicago.edu/page/maps-middle-east

As you can clearly see during the 8th century the Umayyads conquered Galicia: https://cmes.uchicago.edu/sites/cmes.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/Maps/Map - Expansion West.pdf

The dark brown of Asturia and Navarre are the only regions unconquered by the Umayyads, who in turn created the Emirate of Al-Andalus. I'm sorry (not really), I will believe a university over you.

[SirBalon]

The Arabs tried to conquer the whole of the Peninsula (I mean the north) and the Asturs (part of Galicia) and Cantabria held out.  They never actually got to make settlements in Galicia, part of northern León and parts of the Basque region.  Those areas are very mountainous and even though they held forts, it was never a settlement and like from central Iberia downwards.  This map below is a proper Arab settlement guaranteed with all of its rights.  The most important part in all of this is that the people of the extreme northern flank of Iberia never subjected themselves to the Moorish conquest and never accepted integration for the short movement spells they had in the north.

 

[SirBalon]

2 minutes ago, Spike said:

Catalonian culture isn't the same as it was 1000 years ago, it has adopted ideas from other cultures, abandoned traditions for others.

Mate....  This is what's happened everywhere including the USA.  You can't just accept north American history from the moment the bloody constitution was written.  So the whole of the southern region of Iberia (because we've touched on that) have to deny the fact Moorish culture has had a part to play in everything about them because the dominant Catholics re-conquered and from there on that's the way it's been?  This is touchy because Iberia has 20 times the written history of America.

[Spike]

19 minutes ago, SirBalon said:

The Arabs tried to conquer the whole of the Peninsula (I mean the north) and the Asturs (part of Galicia) and Cantabria held out.  They never actually got to make settlements in Galicia, part of northern León and parts of the Basque region.  Those areas are very mountainous and even though they held forts, it was never a settlement and like from central Iberia downwards.  This map below is a proper Arab settlement guaranteed with all of its rights.  The most important part in all of this is that the people of the extreme northern flank of Iberia never subjected themselves to the Moorish conquest and never accepted integration for the short movement spells they had in the north.

 

That isnt' what I'm arguing. You are moving the goal posts. It is a FACT that northern Spain was subjected to Umayyads, no matter for how short of time, how little influence they, or how few settlements they raised. It is a fact it was Ummayad territory. That is an image from the Caliphate of Cordoba which existed 200 YEARS AFTER the Umayyads. I'm not saying their cultural impact is relevant or noticeable but I am saying that they were there. You can't dismiss my map with another from 200 years late. Just like how the Spaniards were in Florida but their cultural impact is negligible.

 

Here is another map from the University of Texas

https://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/history_middle_east.html

[Spike]

12 minutes ago, SirBalon said:

Mate....  This is what's happened everywhere including the USA.  You can't just accept north American history from the moment the bloody constitution was written.  So the whole of the southern region of Iberia (because we've touched on that) have to deny the fact Moorish culture has had a part to play in everything about them because the dominant Catholics re-conquered and from there on that's the way it's been?  This is touchy because Iberia has 20 times the written history of America.

I'm getting tired of this. I didn't say that, I included the thirteen colonies, as they were founding states of America. I'm not talking about North America, I'm talking about the USA. I've always been posting about the USA and only the USA; which is a country not a continent. Let me ask you a question, how many Spaniards from Florida signed the declaration of independence (USA not AMERICA)? How man French from Louisiana died fighting the British army (USA not AMERICA)? Yes, California existed at the same time as the USA but it wasn't the USA then. Florida didn't found the USA, it became a part of USA and adopted it culture. You go down to Florida and you'll see a unique culture from the people that have been their for two hundred years, they aren't Hispanic, they are Floridan, and American. But Florida is changing, it has Cuban influence these days and there is nothing wrong with that. 

I didn't say that the people should deny Moorish cultural heritage. In fact, I'd say it is quite significant more so than the 4 Spaniards that lived in California before manifest destiny.

 

[SirBalon]

2 minutes ago, Spike said:

I'm getting tired of this. I didn't say that, I included the thirteen colonies, as they were founding states of America. I'm not talking about North America, I'm talking about the USA. I've always been posting about the USA and only the USA; which is a country not a continent. Let me ask you a question, how many Spaniards from Florida signed the declaration of independence (USA not AMERICA)? How man French from Louisiana died fighting the British army (USA not AMERICA)? Yes, California existed at the same time as the USA but it wasn't the USA then. Florida didn't found the USA, it became a part of USA and adopted it culture. You go down to Florida and you'll see a unique culture from the people that have been their for two hundred years, they aren't Hispanic, they are Floridan, and American. But Florida is changing, it has Cuban influence these days and there is nothing wrong with that. 

I didn't say that the people should deny Moorish cultural heritage. In fact, I'd say it is quite significant more so than the 4 Spaniards that lived in California before manifest destiny.

 

Who cares how many Latin Americans signed anything or how many French people died in battles mate?

I said from the start, that the USA is a mixed platter of all sorts of cultures that have been there since centuries ago.  I couldn't give a damn who ended up winning the prized pie at the end of it because if you can throw the fact other cultures that have conquered regions of Europe on and off throughout history having a part to play on their makeup, then the same has to be said about the USA when on top of everything they have a much shorter spanned history in these things.

I'm tired of it too mate...  It's just that you were (for some unknown reason, one that I found strange coming from you in particular) being extremely selective as to refute Panflute's argument.

[SirBalon]

7 minutes ago, Spike said:

I didn't say that the people should deny Moorish cultural heritage. In fact, I'd say it is quite significant more so than the 4 Spaniards that lived in California before manifest destiny.

Mate... Almost the whole bloody California has Spanish towns and city names with its capitals all being Spanish names.  If that isn't a mark of other cultures having had a major effect on the whole thing then I don't know what else where the OBVIOUS stakes are.

San Diego isn't Saint James and Los Angeles isn't called The bloody Angels.  I won't even go into Texas because that's just mental.

[Spike]

Just now, SirBalon said:

Who cares how many Latin Americans signed anything or how many French people died in battles mate?

I said from the start, that the USA is a mixed platter of all sorts of cultures that have been there since centuries ago.  I couldn't give a damn who ended up winning the prized pie at the end of it because if you can throw the fact other cultures that have conquered regions of Europe on and off throughout history having a part to play on their makeup, then the same has to be said about the USA when on top of everything they have a much shorter spanned history in these things.

I'm tired of it too mate...  It's just that you were (for some unknown reason, one that I found strange coming from you in particular) being extremely selective as to refute Panflute's argument.

I do! Because I'm arguing about the founding. I was never talking about modern USA. I have always been debating about the founding of the USA. Yes, America became an incredible mix of cultures that turned into a unique culture no matter how small or how significant, I have never denied but I have always debated that the USA was founded by the sons of colonists from Western-Europe and by the time they had founded the USA they had their own distinct culture founded on reformed Christianity, English and enlightenment.

Many French settlers lived in North America, in particular Louisiana but they weren't USA/Americans till they land was bought by Napoleon! They've been influential in the years since but they weren't a part of those men that created the nation.