Hasidic Jew has over 2000 descendants at her death

[ray245]

No, they didn't. However, hordes of Muslim immigrants from former colonial possessions seem to be trying to integrate into European culture now nevertheless.

Except that you were talking about the colonial Empire and not present day Europe.

What in the Hell does that have to do with anything?

Because I'm trying to show that the Roman Empire is multi-cultural, and comparing them with the colonial Empire isn't valid?

Dude, if you want to start a whole conversation about the differences between the Goths, Franks, and the Lombards, feel free to run over to the history forum and get started on it. For the purposes of this conversation, however; it is more than sufficient simply to refer to them as "Barbarians" who just so happened to kill a fuck load of people in the former Roman Empire.

Because I'm trying to push across the point that every barbarian tribes are different, and not all of them wants to destroy the Roman Empire?

[PkbonupePeter_Kcos8]

Except that you were talking about the colonial Empire and not present day Europe.

Once again, the distinction isn't exactly relevant to the purposes of this conversation.

The only parallel you really need to draw from the comparison is that, in both cases, weakened colonial and/ or post-colonial powers either gradually came to be challenged for ethnic and cultural dominance in their own lands by peoples they had conquered, or showed signs of potentially being challenged in the future by the peoples they once colonized.

Because I'm trying to push across the point that every barbarian tribes are different

Once again, considering the fact that there are no barabarian tribes in the hypothetical European worst case scenario I am proposing (unless Iran becomes insanely powerful over the course of the next century in a way we cannot really predict), it really isn't relevant to go into much detail about the distinction.

[ray245]

Except that you were talking about the colonial Empire and not present day Europe.

Once again, the distinction isn't exactly relevant to the purposes of this conversation.

The only parallel you really need to draw from the comparison is that, in both cases, weakened colonial and/ or post-colonial powers either gradually came to be challenged for ethnic and cultural dominance in their own lands by peoples they had conquered, or showed signs of potentially being challenged in the future by the peoples they once colonized.

Are you saying that modern day Europe is weak?

Once again, considering the fact that there are no barabarian tribes in the hypothetical European worst case scenario I am proposing (unless Iran becomes insanely powerful over the course of the next century in a way we cannot really predict), it really isn't relevant to go into much detail about the distinction.

And yet you feel the need to bring up the point.

Also , you are equating the Iranians to the barbarians?

A Europe in which Muslims make up the majority of the population would be no more "Western," than the "Holy Roman Empire" was Roman.

And the Roman Empire cannot be considered as Roman, because the majority of their population isn't Latin. Same can be said about the later Roman Empire, which had Christianity as their state religion.

[PkbonupePeter_Kcos8]

Are you saying that modern day Europe is weak?

"Weak" in as so far as future prospects for "Western civilization" are concerned if current trends don't reverse themselves. Negative population growth among the native population of a region and general apathy among them towards their own traditional cultural values equates to ethnic and cultural strength...How exactly?

Also , you are equating the Iranians to the barbarians?

Your words, not mine. Once again, why you PC headcases feel the need to introduce racism into arguments where none exists is beyond me.

And the Roman Empire cannot be considered as Roman, because the majority of their population isn't Latin.

And what do you know! He finally stumbles upon my original point!

A Europe in which Muslims make up the majority of the population would be no more "Western" than the HRE or the actual Roman Empire of Late Antiquity was "Roman." Is this really that difficult to understand?

[eion]

And the Roman Empire cannot be considered as Roman, because the majority of their population isn't Latin.

And what do you know! He finally stumbles upon my original point!

A Europe in which Muslims make up the majority of the population would be no more "Western" than the HRE was "Roman." Is this really that difficult to understand?

He wasn't talking about the Germanic kingdom beginning with Otto I, you nit. He was calling the Augustinian Empire non-Roman because the majority of its population lives outside the boundary of Rome, aka the city.

Gaul, Greece, Carthage, Africa, Arabia, hell most of Italy weren't considered part of Rome; they were possessions of Rome. They were a colonial-fucking-power too!

[PkbonupePeter_Kcos8]

They were a colonial-fucking-power too!

A. This was my point all along. You people are the ones nitpicking (in an often contradictory manner no less) the Hell out of my every word because you are apparently bound and determined to have a knee-jerk reaction to any post containing the word "barbarian."

As I have stated REPEATEDLY, it is not an exact comparison. I only ever stated that the two situations bear a few similarities to one another. Namely, in that the "colonial" powers in both cases were and are in rather serious danger of reverse ethnic and cultural assimilation.

EDIT:

Think of it this way.

End game of mass ethnic integration into the Classical societies of Greece and Rome in Late Antiquity? No more Classical Civilization.

Possible end game of mass ethnic integration into modern Europe? No more Western Civilization.

Once again, is this really so hard to comprehend?

hell most of Italy weren't considered part of Rome

B. By the end of the Roman era, such differences had been largely forgetten. Besides, you are forgetting the fact that the Romans actively colonized many of their conquests.

[PkbonupePeter_Kcos8]

He was calling the Augustinian Empire non-Roman because the majority of its population lives outside the boundary of Rome, aka the city.

By that logic, the British Empire wasn't really British either.

[eion]

He was calling the Augustinian Empire non-Roman because the majority of its population lives outside the boundary of Rome, aka the city.

By that logic, the British Empire wasn't really British either.

No, that really doesn't work because the British claimed total dominion over places like India. It was British India which the sovereign ruled as another crown, like the crowns of Scotland & Ireland. Same with Australia, Canada, etc.

Roman emperors did not claim to be the pharaoh. Egypt was a client.

[PkbonupePeter_Kcos8]

No, that really doesn't work because the British claimed total dominion over places like India. It was British India which the sovereign ruled as another crown, like the crowns of Scotland & Ireland. Same with Australia, Canada, etc.

Roman emperors did not claim to be the pharaoh. Egypt was a client.

Once again, this is a largely superficial difference. Bottom line: Rome ruled Egypt on a de facto basis, and it ruled a hell of a lot of the rest of the ancient world as well.

All of it formed the "Roman Empire."

[ray245]

"Weak" in as so far as future prospects for "Western civilization" are concerned if current trends don't reverse themselves. Negative population growth among the native population of a region and general apathy among them towards their own traditional cultural values equates to ethnic and cultural strength...How exactly?

Ethnic strength? Are you saying that western culture is limited to a specific ethnic group? And in what way are the Europeans apathetic to their western values?

And what do you know! He finally stumbles upon my original point!

A Europe in which Muslims make up the majority of the population would be no more "Western" than the HRE or the actual Roman Empire of Late Antiquity was "Roman." Is this really that difficult to understand?

And the Americans in the 21st century cannot be considered Americans because they are different from the Americans in the 18th century.

Additionally, the Romans are constantly being influenced by external cultures, regardless of what kind of culture they are. So at what point do you consider the Romans to be Roman, and at which point during the late antiquity era do you consider them to be non-Romans?

Once again, this is a largely superficial difference. Bottom line: Rome ruled Egypt on a de facto basis, and it ruled a hell of a lot of the rest of the ancient world as well.

All of it formed the "Roman Empire."

Except that many people are considered to be a Roman citizen regardless of their ethnic group.

[PkbonupePeter_Kcos8]

Ethnic strength? Are you saying that western culture is limited to a specific ethnic group?

Of course it is. "Western culture" is dependent upon the practices, customs, and beliefs which have been built by "Western people." Replacing many or most of these influences with their Muslim and Middle Eastern equivalents might not be objectively "bad" or "good," but it certainly wouldn't be "Western."

And the Americans in the 21st century cannot be considered Americans because they are different from the Americans in the 18th century.

The predominantly White Anglo-Saxon Protestant culture the United States originally possessed has been largely deluded. However, there is still a Hell of a lot more cultural and ethnic homogeneity between what are essentially White Catholic/ Orthodox Europeans or even Latin Americans, and White Protestant Europeans, than there is between either of the preceding groups and Middle Eastern Muslims.

Additionally, there is the fact that Europe's native population is in wholesale decline, which was never the case in the United States of the 19th century.

Additionally, the Romans are constantly being influenced by external cultures, regardless of what kind of culture they are. So at what point do you consider the Romans to be Roman, and at which point during the late antiquity era do you consider them to be non-Romans?

I have absolutely no idea. As I have already told Eion, I have absolutely no intention of leaping through hoops, particularly when doing so would simply lead us on a tangent.

If you want to know exactly when "Classical Civilization" died, ask an historian. It was likely a gradual process which took place over the course of several centuries, and involved many different cultural and demographic developments (such as throwing off Paganism for Christianity for instance, or allowing Germanic tribes to settle within the Empire's borders).

Except that many people are considered to be a Roman citizen regardless of their ethnic group.

Superficial, once again.

[Simon_Jester]

Dear Peter: I conclude that you are not qualified to comment on the subjects you are discussing, because you appear to miss extremely simple and obvious problems with your arguments. Repeatedly. Insisting that you are not racist while talking about how Race A is doomed to degenerate if it doesn't remember its "values" and start breeding fast enough to avoid getting swamped by the "hordes" of Race B is not credible. Claiming that the Roman Empire fell apart because of something at all analogous to Muslim immigrant workers in modern Europe is also not credible. This shows signs of either profound historical illiteracy, or profound dishonesty about your true opinions and motives.

On Your Views on Modern Europe:

"Weak" in as so far as future prospects for "Western civilization" are concerned if current trends don't reverse themselves. Negative population growth among the native population of a region and general apathy among them towards their own traditional cultural values equates to ethnic and cultural strength...How exactly?

How does it equate to weakness? Could you kindly define weakness in quantifiable terms, or at least offer quantifiable measures that explain why what you call bad news is bad news, in non-circular terms?

Why is not (for instance) going to the same church your grandfather did, then getting married and having six kids a sign that you are part of a weakening and degenerating society? I mean yes, there are practical problems associated with demographic collapse, but they don't take the form "society becomes bankrupt and shrivels up and blows away!"

Additionally, there is the fact that (if studies are to be believed) fewer Europeans subscribe to or understand their own traditional cultural values than at any other point in history.

Also: what traditional values? How do I know that the "traditional values" of Europe are the ones I want to see preserved, as opposed to the ones I can do without (like classism)? How do I know what "understanding" those "values" means without knowing anything about the survey?

You're using very vague terms to create alarm where I don't see evidence that it should exist.

Your words, not mine. Once again, why you PC headcases feel the need to introduce racism into arguments where none exists is beyond me.

If you are unable to perceive the implicit racism in your own arguments- the imagery of "foreign hordes," the preoccupation with keeping up a breeding population of "good" people so that they are not outbred by "bad" people- you are not qualified to comment on other people's discussion of that racism.

============

On Your Views of Ancient Rome:

Except that the European colonial Empire didn't even consider most of its people to be its citizens, nor did they attempt to give citizenship to them.

You're getting too hung up on superficial details Ray. It is more or less the same thing. The "colonized" are migrating to the "colonizer's" land.

In this case, you're hiding a very large devil in those little details. Specifically, the difference between migrant workers who come one by one and are forced to follow the laws of the society they come to... and entire cultures migrating en masse, bringing their leadership cadre intact, and threatening to pillage border provinces unless those provinces are signed over. This is not a small or subtle difference.

World War 1, World War 2, the Cold War, etca, etca...The 20th Century wasn't exactly kind to Europe. In many ways, they are only now recovering.

And yet we have a really huge, obvious difference: the wars in Europe managed not to destroy the structure of government in the region. This is an area of large, prosperous, stable countries today; it's a far cry from the chronic instability of the late Roman period.

Progressive reduction of the population into slavery/serfdom

It might not be due to slavery, but the population of Europe is definitely in decline.

There is a huge difference between people not having children and people being reduced to serfdom on the farms just conquered by the Warlord of the Week.

Again, you're trying too hard to find analogies without paying attention to the actual nature of the things you're drawing the analogies between.
________

On Your Views of non-Roman Barbarians:

Once again, you are puting a racist spin on the idea that I never did. I never said that such mixing was bad. I simply stated that it happened. In any case, however; it was certainly bad for the Romans.

This does not make sense. If genetic mixing was somehow implicated in the fall of Rome (as you say, "bad for the Romans,") then it would be ridiculous to say that genetic mixing in that situation was good. Or even neutral. The only way to make sense of the notion is to posit that something in German genes somehow threatened or damaged the Roman social order... which cannot possibly be explained without racial theory.

There's just no way for me to square your claims that this isn't racism against the early Germanic tribes with your claim that genetic mixing between the Romans and the Germans was part of Rome's problems.

Why do you seem to have this preconception of Barbarians as cultureless killing machines?

Possibly because the ones who sacked the Empire were?

Citation requested.
________

It is difficult to avoid someone's fate when you don't understand what happened to them beyond the superficials.

It is not exactly the same. However, you have to admit that there are a number of, quite frankly, disturbing parallels.

No, in point of fact, I do not. I do not see these parallels you cite. Some of them seem to be outright perpendiculars, as far as I can tell.

So you have not convinced me that there are any disturbing parallels between the Fall of Rome and the situation in Europe today, any more so than there are between the Fall of Rome and every society that ever existed at every time in its history. Correlations no greater than would be expected by chance are not correlations.

I must say, if you cannot tell the difference between Muslim immigrants circa 2000 and the Germanic "hordes" circa 400, you are not qualified to comment on either.

[PkbonupePeter_Kcos8]

How does it equate to weakness? Could you kindly define weakness in quantifiable terms, or at least offer quantifiable measures that explain why what you call bad news is bad news, in non-circular terms?

What in the Hell are you talking about? There is objectively less of you, and more of them. "Quantifiable terms" don't get much more simple than that.

You can't simply dump a whole container's worth of salt into your soup and not expect it to "taste" salty.

the imagery of "foreign hordes," the preoccupation with keeping up a breeding population of "good" people so that they are not outbred by "bad" people

Actually, I have rather explicitly stated that such matters are inherently relative. There is nothing objectively "wrong" with the collapse of Western culture in Europe...unless you happen to be a Westerner of course. This is a matter of interests, not objective right or wrong.

There's still a difference between armies marching around and biting chunks off an Empire and a stream of migrant workers.

Keep in mind that I was referring to the cultural liquidation of "Classical Civilization" in general, not necessarily the political liquidation of the Roman Empire in particular. I can tend to sometimes use the terms "civilization" and "culture" interchangeably. I'm sorry if it casued confusion on this point.

the wars in Europe managed not to destroy the structure of government in the region.

You sure about that? The collapse of European hegemony following the World Wars and the economic collapsed spawned in Eastern Europe by the end of the Cold War would strike me as being rather traumatic, and structurally destructive events.

as opposed to the ones I can do without (like classism)? How do I know what "understanding" those "values" means without knowing anything about the survey?

The simple fact of the matter is that people who are attatched to their cultures generally tend to want to preserve them. A whole lot of Westerners these days simply aren't.

How do I know that the "traditional values" of Europe are the ones I want to see preserved,

With that in mind, arguments like this actually only strengthen mine.

Many Muslims, you'll notice, don't seem to have this problem. In fact, they are ethnocentric and damn proud of it.

EDIT:

Once again, this isn't necessarily a bad thing. It simply doesn't bode well for "Western culture" in Europe.

If genetic mixing was somehow implicated in the fall of Rome (as you say, "bad for the Romans,") then it would be ridiculous to say that genetic mixing in that situation was good.

No, I was arguing that such mixing was largely responsible for the collapse of Classical Culture. The fact that it may or may not have aided in the collapse of Roman social order is neither here, nor there.

Specifically, the difference between migrant workers who come one by one and are forced to follow the laws of the society they come to... and entire cultures migrating en masse, bringing their leadership cadre intact, and threatening to pillage border provinces unless those provinces are signed over.

Once again, the collapse of classical civilization was not a sudden event.

[ray245]

Of course it is. "Western culture" is dependent upon the practices, customs, and beliefs which have been built by "Western people." Replacing many or most of these influences with their Muslim and Middle Eastern equivalents might not be objectively "bad" or "good," but it certainly wouldn't be "Western."

Except that Islam isn't really an ethnic group.

What about Caucasians that practice Islam? Are they no longer considered to be westerners? Also, I have to ask, what about East Asians immigrants? Are they incapable of being westernised?

The predominantly White Anglo-Saxon Protestant culture the United States originally possessed has been largely deluded. However, there is still a Hell of a lot more cultural and ethnic homogeneity between what are essentially White Catholic/ Orthodox Europeans or even Latin Americans, and White Protestent Europeans, than there is between either of the preceding groups and Middle Eastern Muslims.

Additionally, there is the fact that Europe's native population is in wholesale decline, which was never the case in the United States of the 19th century.

Yes, but the question I am asking is, do you consider a person who is of non Anglo-Sxon descent to be Americans?

I have absolutely no idea. As I have already told Eion, I have absolutely no intention of leaping through hoops, particularly when doing so would simply lead us on a tangent.

If you want to know exactly when "Classical Civilization" died, ask an historian. It was likely a gradual process which took place over the course of several centuries, and involved many different cultural and demographic developments (such as throwing off Paganism for Christianity for instance, or the allowing of Germanic tribes to settle within the Empire's borders).

I'm asking a rhetorical question. My point was that the Roman culture is constantly evolving to the extend that you can't really call the Romans in late antiquity as non-Romans.

Superficial, once again.

Not really, given that this proves my point that what makes you a do not need to have Latin ancestor to be considered a Roman.

[PkbonupePeter_Kcos8]

Except that Islam isn't really an ethnic group.

When it is considered that many of them seem to feel much more comfortable associating with one another than with Europeans, they can be seen to represent a comparably monolithic cultural force.

What about Caucasians that practice Islam? Are they no longer considered to be westerners?

That would depend entirely upon how seriously they chose to take the religion. However, if everyone were to start converting to Islam all of the sudden, I would definitely count that towards a major cultural shift.

Also, I have to ask, what about East Asians immigrants? Are they incapable of being westernised?

It is not about anyone being "incapable of being westernized." It is about the balance of cultural diffusion. If there are quite literally so many East Asians in your country that they are begining to assimilate your culture, rather than the other way around, then a cultural shift is taking place.

do you consider a person who is of non Anglo-Sxon descent to be Americans?

Yes. See above.

My point was that the Roman culture is constantly evolving to the extend that you can't really call the Romans in late antiquity as non-Romans.

My point was that, by late antiquity, more were than were not.

[ray245]

That would depend entirely upon how seriously they chose to take the religion. However, if everyone were to start converting to Islam all of the sudden, I would definitely count that towards a major cultural shift.

Except that even if such as mass conversion took place, an European culture will still remain. If the attitude most Europeans have towards Islam is the same attitude they have towards Christianity, does this make them less of a westerner?

It is not about anyone being "incapable of being westernized." It is about the balance of cultural diffusion. If there are quite literally so many East Asians in your country that they are beginning to assimilate your culture, rather than the other way around, then a cultural shift is taking place.

If population size is what you viewed as the most important criteria that makes a nation western, what happens when whites in the US are no longer in the majority, and the majority of the population are blacks? Does this mean that US is no longer a western nation?

[PkbonupePeter_Kcos8]

Except that even if such as mass conversion took place, an European culture will still remain.

Some form of European culture would remain. Whether it would look even remotely like anything you would recognise is an entirely different issue.

If population size is what you viewed as the most important criteria that makes a nation western, what happens when whites in the US are no longer in the majority, and the majority of the population are blacks? Does this mean that US is no longer a western nation?

A. The African American population has been here so long, and is so well assimilated, that their "Americaness" is hardly in question.

B. Where Hispanics in the US are concerned, "Americanness" is hardly the same as "Westernness" where it apllies to Europe. A Muslim dominant culture in Europe would still be "European." It simply would not be "Western."

Regardless of how Hispanics may change the United States' national culture, they are still "Western." They simply do not necessarily comply with the view of "Americanness" most Americans seem to subscribe to at the moment.

[ray245]

Some form of European culture would remain. Whether it would look even remotely like anything you would recognise is an entirely different issue.

Being a westerner has less to do with what kind of religion that the majority of the people in society are practising, and more to do with how do they practice their religion.

A. The African American population has been here so long, and is so well assimilated, that their "Americaness" is hardly in question.

B. Where Hispanics in the US are concerned, "Americanness" is hardly the same as "Westernness" where it apllies to Europe. A Muslim dominant culture in Europe would still be "European." It simply would not be "Western."

Regardless of how Hispanics may change the United States' national culture, they are still "Western." They simply do not necessarily comply with the view of "Americanness" most Americans seem to subscribe to at the moment.

Again, this leads back to an earlier point that was raised earlier, which is whether the off-spring of the migrants will even act like their parents.

[Simon_Jester]

If population size is what you viewed as the most important criteria that makes a nation western, what happens when whites in the US are no longer in the majority, and the majority of the population are blacks? Does this mean that US is no longer a western nation?

Absurd nitpick: actually, the projection is that all races currently called minorities will wind up collectively outnumbering whites. Blacks make up ~13% of the population at the moment, and while they're growing faster than the average, they're not growing nearly fast enough to make up a majority any time in the next few centuries.
_______

What in the Hell are you talking about? There is objectively less of you, and more of them. "Quantifiable terms" don't get much more simple than that.
You can't simply dump a whole container's worth of salt into your soup and not expect it to "taste" salty.

So... when you say "cultural strength" or whatever, you mean "number of adherents to the culture." The problem with this, as I see it, is that it greatly reduces the significance of your argument. First of all, even the most mindlessly extrapolated projections don't show Europeans becoming a demographic minority in their own countries in the near to mid-future, and in the extreme long term the idea of being able to predict what's going to happen to culture in Europe is nonsense (try predicting forward from what things looked like in 1750 to 1950).

the imagery of "foreign hordes," the preoccupation with keeping up a breeding population of "good" people so that they are not outbred by "bad" people

Actually, I have rather explicitly stated that such matters are inherently relative. There is nothing objectively "wrong" with the collapse of Western culture in Europe...unless you happen to be a Westerner of course. This is a matter of interests, not objective right or wrong.

You've yet to convince me that this isn't classical racism. Among other things, your choice of imagery (comparisons to barbarian hordes) strongly implies that you're setting the immigrants up as the heavies of the piece.

It is very possible to be a racist without openly claiming that one's own race is objectively superior. This has been done. All that's needed is thought along the lines of "my race, right or wrong" or "people should stay with their own kind;" that's the stuff that creates the real poison.

So I think it's perfectly reasonable for people to claim that there are racial and racist elements to your argument, because if we put the content of your ideas in historical context, that is what you are talking about. The European race is in danger of being outbred by Middle Easterners and must therefore revert to its "core values" and start making babies faster if it doesn't want to be destroyed. You're just using different language because "race" is not a popular word these days.

There's still a difference between armies marching around and biting chunks off an Empire and a stream of migrant workers.

Keep in mind that I was referring to the cultural liquidation of "Classical Civilization" in general, not necessarily the political liquidation of the Roman Empire in particular. I can tend to sometimes use the terms "civilization" and "culture" interchangeably. I'm sorry if it casued confusion on this point.

Since the cultural disolution of Greco-Roman culture in Western Europe had a great deal to do with the political collapse of the Empire in the West, it's a moot point. Note that in the East, where the Empire did not collapse, the Greco-Roman culture survived and continued to evolve, though in a very different direction because of the influence of Christianity.

You sure about that? The collapse of European hegemony following the World Wars and the economic collapsed spawned in Eastern Europe by the end of the Cold War would strike me as being rather traumatic, and structurally destructive events.

Look at the actual governments that exist in Europe, outside the territories of the former USSR (but including the former Warsaw Pact states).

They are stable. With few exceptions, they have uncontested control over their citizens. They provide some of the world's highest standards of living. They have steady, peaceful transfers of power. There is no realistic danger of any of this changing in the near future.

How is this like the fall of the Roman Empire?

The simple fact of the matter is that people who are attatched to their cultures generally tend to want to preserve them. A whole lot of Westerners these days simply aren't.

You're still using poorly defined terms.

What does it mean to "preserve" a culture? Is a culture "preserved" if many of its values change over time to embrace new concepts? A European from 1900 would be shocked and probably disgusted if they found out about some of the mores that prevail today. Is this cultural disintegration, or cultural evolution? Most importantly, is it even possible to "preserve" a culture by any means other than pathological hyper-conservatism?

What does it mean to "be attached" to a culture? What does it mean to say that a lot of "Westerners" are not "attached" to their culture? Have they lost interest in ideas like freedom of speech, getting to vote, equality of the sexes, that sort of thing? Are we seeing mass defections away from Western society to other societies by "its" people?

And above all else, what are Western cultural values? Your idea may not match mine, and what you call Western culture may be in danger while Western culture as I define it is thriving. For all I know, your concern that "western culture" is about to be destroyed might be as absurd as having me complain that exercise will "destroy" my body by reducing its weight and altering its shape.

No, I was arguing that such mixing was largely responsible for the collapse of Classical Culture.

How is this consistent with the image of the barbarians as uncultured killers? Contrast to the Mongols in China, who assimilated and vanished into the native culture without a trace precisely because they had no competing culture of their own that could withstand the appeal of Sinicization. Why was the classical world so different?

And why is this mainly a genetic phenomenon? It's not as if the migrating tribes outnumbered the settled peoples of the region they were migrating into.

Specifically, the difference between migrant workers who come one by one and are forced to follow the laws of the society they come to... and entire cultures migrating en masse, bringing their leadership cadre intact, and threatening to pillage border provinces unless those provinces are signed over.

Once again, the collapse of classical civilization was not a sudden event.

No, it was not: the loss of border provinces and mass migrations occured over a period of decades.

[eion]

What about Caucasians that practice Islam? Are they no longer considered to be westerners?

That would depend entirely upon how seriously they chose to take the religion. However, if everyone were to start converting to Islam all of the sudden, I would definitely count that towards a major cultural shift.

I declare European culture dead since CE 313 when the Roman Emperor Constantine fell prey to an insidious and non-native cult, and through his position as political leader of Europe compelled the conversion of his subjects to this pervasive and foreign cult that continues to hold Europe in its dark grip. This horrendous farce of a religion forced the culturally superior Romans to give up their time honored practices of slavery and ritual and public execution via sporting matches.

Since that horrible day, the West has never recovered from the influence of foreign powers, and to this day the majority of residents pay homage, if only lip service by some, to a foreign personality cult with origins in a faraway land.

All this is by way of asking, if “traditional” European values are the only ones right for Europe, shouldn’t they all go back to worshiping trees and telling the future via the intestines of sheep?

[Simon_Jester]

I think they got the haruspicy from somewhere else, too. The Babylonians were elbow-deep in that stuff.

[PkbonupePeter_Kcos8]

First of all, even the most mindlessly extrapolated projections don't show Europeans becoming a demographic minority in their own countries in the near to mid-future, and in the extreme long term the idea of being able to predict what's going to happen to culture in Europe is nonsense

As I said to begin with, this is only a hypothetical (and unlikely) worst case scenario, which would only come to pass over the course of the next few centuries if it were to occur at all.

It is very possible to be a racist without openly claiming that one's own race is objectively superior. This has been done. All that's needed is thought along the lines of "my race, right or wrong" or "people should stay with their own kind;" that's the stuff that creates the real poison.

I think that "racism" might be too strong a word, though will admit that I am very likely guilty of a certain degree of "ethnocentrism." To be honest, I don't really see much of anything wrong with "ethnocentric" views. I even tend to believe that they are necessary if a society is to survive.

To quote Theodore Roosevelt:

"I would think no more of a man who loves not his own country more than any other country than of a man who loves not his own wife or mother more than the wives and mothers of other men. A strong and sane nationalism is the only possible basis for internationalism."--

While it may offend some, I believe that the same mentality should apply to one's native culture. I have a vested interest in not seeing my own culture destroyed in its historic birth place. Is that wrong?

Note that in the East, where the Empire did not collapse, the Greco-Roman culture survived and continued to evolve, though in a very different direction because of the influence of Christianity.

The Eastern Empire is actually a better example of what I am talking about. There, Classical culture actually was simply diffused into oblivion rather than violently destroyed.

Apart from the language, sciences, and some elements of the armed forces, there was very little that was "Greek or Roman" about the Byzantine Empire from the 6th and 7th centuries onwards.

How is this like the fall of the Roman Empire?

As I have already stated, I am referring more to the cultural collapse of Greece and Rome than their physical collapse.

However, I do believe that it is worth noting that Europe has been taken for a ride over the course of the last century that has left its population in decline and its culture open to alien influences.

What does it mean to "preserve" a culture? Is a culture "preserved" if many of its values change over time to embrace new concepts?

I was hoping to avoid such issues as I knew they would quickly get completely out of hand, but here goes anyway...

Religion has a lot to do with culture, alright? *ducks and covers to avoid the inevitable and massive backlash*

In all seriousness, however; "Western" civilization IS Judeo-Christian in basis.

Sure, we have made great strides towards secularlism in recent years, but the fact remains that our holidays, cultural views, and even our morality do largely spring from a judeo-christian inspired worldview which dominated Europe for centuries. It is deeply ingrained in the cultures and customs of many of the region's largest nations.

A Muslim dominant Europe, if it were not to conform and assimilate to an absurd level, would not. In fact, I would argue that even a secular Muslim Europe would still be drastically different from one in which Christians held the majority. The whole underpinnings of the society in question would be different.

This isn't to say that all Europeans should start coverting to fundamentalist Christianity all of the sudden. It simply means that such a change would have significant and largely unforeeable consequences on just about every level of society. In an ideally "secular" world, this would not be the case. However, this is not an ideal world.

EDIT:

Classical Civilization was "pagan" in basis as well.

How is this consistent with the image of the barbarians as uncultured killers?

That depends on how you want to classify "uncultured killers." As far as I am concerned, the Goths, Vandals, and Franks were generally brutal people who killed a whole lot of people in Roman Europe. I'm sorry if my penchant for avoiding politically correct euphemisms offends some people, but it quite frankly is the truth.

Contrast to the Mongols in China, who assimilated and vanished into the native culture without a trace precisely because they had no competing culture of their own that could withstand the appeal of Sinicization. Why was the classical world so different?

Because the Germans and other "barbaric" peoples had already been immigrating and migrating into the Empire for centuries by the time the actual invasions occured. They had actually done more to assimilate the Romans than the Romans had done to assimilate them.

This is precisely my point.

[eion]

I think they got the haruspicy from somewhere else, too. The Babylonians were elbow-deep in that stuff.

Is there no end to the corrupting influence of foreigners on pure immutable European culture! Oh the Romanity!

Next you'll tell me the Romans just scratched the names of some statues of Greek gods they found and added their own.

[eion]

I think that "racism" might be too strong a word...

What does it mean to "preserve" a culture? Is a culture "preserved" if many of its values change over time to embrace new concepts?

I was hoping to avoid such issues as I knew they would quickly get completely out of hand, but here goes anyway...

Religion has a lot to do with culture, alright? *ducks and covers to avoid the inevitable and massive backlash*

In all seriousness, however; "Western" civilization IS Judeo-Christian in basis.

Sure, we have made great strides towards secularlism in recent years, but the fact remains that our holidays, cultural views, and even our morality do largely spring from a judeo-christian inspired worldview which dominated Europe for centuries. It is deeply ingrained in the cultures and customs of many of the region's largest nations.[/quote]

Want some proof that "Western" civilization is not Judeo-Christian in basis. Let’s look no further than the major holidays.

Saturnalia, Yule = Christmas (Jesus was born in the spring or summer)

Easter = Spring Fertility Festivals (what do bunnies have to do with crucifixion?)

Christianity spread so effectively because, for one reason, the missionaries were (and are) so willing to allow the pagans to keep their local festivals, and gave them new Christ-inclusive interpretations instead. Christianity assimilated into indigenous pagan culture. Who's to say Europe wouldn't improve with Middle-Eastern cultural influences? The food's pretty darn good.

A Muslim dominant Europe, if it were not to conform and assimilate to an absurd level, would not. In fact, I would argue that even a secular Muslim Europe would still be drastically different from one in which Christians held the majority. The whole underpinnings of the society in question would be different.

Islam recognizes Judaism and Christianity as its predecessor, just as Christianity recognizes Judaism as its predecessor. "People of the Book" have always been afforded special consideration in the history of Islam as opposed to peoples of non Abrahamic-religions. Newsflash: Jesus & Moses are both in the Koran! The moral concepts (and most of the stories) are basically identical.

[Simon_Jester]

Eion, there IS one very significant difference between Islam and Christianity that has huge consequences.

Christianity is, and has always been, a religion focused on personal salvation. The great question for a Christian is "How can I, personally, avoid the torments of Hell and find the joys of Heaven? And how can I, personally, help my small circle of friends do the same?"

Islam is, and has always been, a communitarian religion. From the very beginning, Muhammed was talking about a community of believers who would (ideally) live in unity, stability, and peace... internal peace, anyway. Therefore, the great question for a Muslim is "How can I, personally, act in a way that promotes the well-being of the community of Muslim believers?"

As I said to begin with, this is only a hypothetical (and unlikely) worst case scenario, which would only come to pass over the course of the next few centuries if it were to occur at all.

The problem is that it implicitly affects everything you say: all this talk about cultures being 'destroyed' and 'weakened.' You say it's a low-probability event, but you act like it's the most plausible outcome.

I think that "racism" might be too strong a word, though will admit that I am very likely guilty of a certain degree of "ethnocentrism." To be honest, I don't really see much of anything wrong with "ethnocentric" views. I even tend to believe that they are necessary if a society is to survive.

But when used the way you use it, "ethnicity" is functionally equivalent to "race." When you're talking about how French/American/Western/whatever culture is threatened by outsiders, and that the adherents of this culture need to embrace "traditional values" and breed faster to keep from being dissolved by the foreign hordes... it really doesn't matter whether you're saying "culture" or "race." You're pitching "race"

While it may offend some, I believe that the same mentality should apply to one's native culture. I have a vested interest in not seeing my own culture destroyed in its historic birth place. Is that wrong?

I am not disturbed by what you seem to say disturbs me.

What disturbs me is:
-The racial overtones in your comments: it's all about X outbreeding Y, and about "stronger" peoples absorbing "weaker" ones. It sounds so painfully much like the sort of things people would say a hundred years ago to justify doing things that were vile and contemptible to someone browner than they were.
-That your model of cultures, civilizations, peoples, races, whatever, is incompatible with mine. You seem to be treating cultures as static eternal verities that cannot change, because any influence on them destroys them and replaces them with something new. And you want your static eternal verity to last forever, which means blocking outside influences and entering a self-referential loop of "traditional values." I don't like it, because I think that xenophobia is an inadequate basis for a healthy civilization.

The Eastern Empire is actually a better example of what I am talking about. There, Classical culture actually was simply diffused into oblivion rather than violently destroyed.

Apart from the language, sciences, and some elements of the armed forces, there was very little that was "Greek or Roman" about the Byzantine Empire from the 6th and 7th centuries onwards.

Then what was it? Polynesian?

I mean yes, it wasn't identical to the Greece of Pericles or the Rome of Scipio, but so what? You can't expect a society to remain so unchanged, so frozen that a 10th century Byzantine will live and think just as a 2nd century Athenian or Roman would. That would be absurd. Cultures evolve; they have to, because they're made of people and not museum dioramas.

The Byzantine Empire is actually an excellent example of what classical Rome was evolving into with effectively no influences from outside its own borders. The Byzantines did not experience major migrations of foreigners into their empire (though they did lose territory over time to outright conquest). Its main cultural influences (Greek philosophy, Christianity, and so forth) came entirely from territories that it had firm control over at the time those influences occured.

If that's still cause for complaint that an old culture has vanished, then you're allowing effectively no change of culture over time at all. It's like complaining that the French aren't "really" French and their essential Frenchness has been contaminated or diluted because you can't find anything like the court of Louis XIV today.

What does it mean to "preserve" a culture? Is a culture "preserved" if many of its values change over time to embrace new concepts?

I was hoping to avoid such issues as I knew they would quickly get completely out of hand, but here goes anyway...

Religion has a lot to do with culture, alright? *ducks and covers to avoid the inevitable and massive backlash* In all seriousness, however; "Western" civilization IS Judeo-Christian in basis. Sure, we have made great strides towards secularlism in recent years, but the fact remains that our holidays, cultural views, and even our morality do largely spring from a judeo-christian inspired worldview which dominated Europe for centuries. It is deeply ingrained in the cultures and customs of many of the region's largest nations.

A Muslim dominant Europe, if it were not to conform and assimilate to an absurd level, would not. In fact, I would argue that even a secular Muslim Europe would still be drastically different from one in which Christians held the majority. The whole underpinnings of the society in question would be different.

This isn't to say that all Europeans should start coverting to fundamentalist Christianity all of the sudden. It simply means that such a change would have significant and largely unforeeable consequences on just about every level of society. In an ideally "secular" world, this would not be the case. However, this is not an ideal world.

You still haven't answered my question; that's a red herring. Obviously your concept of culture is more sophisticated than "don't change religion, ever, because that is the culture-killer."

So I ask again:
What does it mean to "preserve" a culture? Is a culture "preserved" if many of its values change over time to embrace new concepts?

For example, was medieval European culture "preserved" as it went through the Renaissance and the Enlightment? Or was it "destroyed" (largely by foreign influence in the form of preserved Greco-Roman literature)? What about the culture that came out of that, the Victorian era of the 1800s? Was that culture "preserved" as Europe and America moved to a more tolerant, secular, democratic model in the 20th century? If not, how could it be "destroyed" with effectively no outside influence?

If so, why is it that a Victorian gentleman would be horrified to see our culture today, even at its most vibrant- hell, especially at its most vibrant?

Is it even possible to "preserve" a culture except by pinning it on a display case under glass like a dead butterfly and pumping the case full of nitrogen to keep it from corroding away of its own accord?

That depends on how you want to classify "uncultured killers." As far as I am concerned, the Goths, Vandals, and Franks were generally brutal people who killed a whole lot of people in Roman Europe. I'm sorry if my penchant for avoiding politically correct euphemisms offends some people, but it quite frankly is the truth.

Enough with the feigned apologies; what you're ignoring is that the Romans were also brutal people who killed a whole lot of people in Roman Europe. That didn't make the Romans cultureless all-destructive savages, so in and of itself it doesn't make the Goths, Vandals, and Franks cultureless all-destructive savages.

Because the Germans and other "barbaric" peoples had already been immigrating and migrating into the Empire for centuries by the time the actual invasions occured. They had actually done more to assimilate the Romans than the Romans had done to assimilate them.
This is precisely my point.

Interesting point. Could you document this? Cite historians of the late Roman era, perhaps? I'd be interested to see the demographics involved, or the cultural changes. What sources do we have for the conclusion that the Romans were being assimilated by the Germans? Are they reliable, or are they the Roman equivalent of old men sitting on the porch and grumbling about how kids these days have no respect because of that crazy Negro music they listen to?