The Decline and Fall of Europe

[Gfted1]

There wasn't even a wink-smilie or any other slightest hint that it could be a joke. Unfortunately, some others in this thread even consider it a good statement

 

Again, I agree with Samm when he says there is no evidence that walkerguy

[Kaftan Barlast]

Most of the decline in the western economy is due to outsourcing. Like, swedish telecom company Telia, who made record profits of more than a billion euro and what do they do? Give their employees a christmas bonus? Nope, they sack all their swedish employees and spends the money on moving production to China instead. It's no wonder we have mass unemployment and poverty if w have to compete with people who can do the sam that we do for just a dollar a day.

[@\NightandtheShape/@]

If it's incorrect, help me out and show me why. My understanding was that with the obvious exception of miscegenation on colour lines we're a huge hodgepodge of Nords, Celts, saxons, Irish, French...

 

Happy to...

 

Norse and Saxon tribes are somewhat indistinguishable and can happily be thought of as falling under the banner of Germanic tibes, which is to say that they're basically the exact same thing, linguistically at the time they spoke a language which was somewhat indistinguishable, much like American English and actual English, though naturally not exactly the same. Culturally they're almost identical on a grass roots level, beowulf, which is percieved as an Anglo-Saxon epic has absolutely no connection with the anglo-saxons themselves.

 

The Norman were infact of Norse decent, so again its really just more of the same.

 

The Celts, are not a whole other race, infact they've been distingushed as having the same shared common heritage, northern europeans are northern europeans and thus is a more correct perception of these people.

 

To be blunt and to the point how can one consider people to be mongrels, when its just a bunch of the same gene's, same culture same same... It doesn't make sense to me for these tribes to be percieved as being wholistically different, so you can't really say that we're mongrels.

 

Genetically speaking though there ain't much difference between any of us other than small genetic variances, which obviously serve the purpose of evolution, and increased survival in said regions of the planet, for whatever reason... There is no space in the conversation for supremacy. Just doesn't work like that.

 

 

In what way precisely?

 

~~

 

Benefits of Christianity:

 

pacifism

charity towards the weak

the so-called 'protestant work ethic'

 

Just a couple that sprang to mind.

 

Or would you prefer Nordic or Classic religion?

 

 

~~~

 

BTW I'm going to pretend this is relevant to Europe going down the tubes because it refers to notions that we are being impoverished by outside influences.

 

I was speaking in a rather blatent in a generalised sense. While I may have issues with some of the christian doctrine I wouldn't go so far as to say for individuals it is wrong and I can only speak of its overall impact, from Pagan forced conversions through to evangelical victorian era christianity perpetuating the idea of empire, to the modern day, christianity often fuels ignorance on a grand scale. There were negative impacts upon science, and phillosophy for many hundreds of years. I find great irony in the fact that it was Muslims who perserved the works of Plato for example.

 

Why shouldn't I prefer Nordic or Classic religion? They certainly function on a level of morality I can agree with.

Edited February 22, 2008 by @\NightandtheShape/@

[Azarkon]

I'm not sure the ancient religions functioned on any specific level of morality. They were more explanatory than they were prescriptive, and morality was therefore determined more by society and culture than it was by religion - at least, that's what it seemed like to me.

[Sand]

I have to agree with NightandtheShape about Christianity. It has done more harm than good in its 2000 years of existence.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

It has done more harm than good in its 2000 years of existence.

 

I also agree with the above statement.

[Pidesco]

I'm very surprised that some of the Americans on this board think the world would be a better place without the U.S.

[Gorth]

I'm not sure the ancient religions functioned on any specific level of morality. They were more explanatory than they were prescriptive, and morality was therefore determined more by society and culture than it was by religion - at least, that's what it seemed like to me.

I can only speak for the religion of my ancestors (I am danish), but having rules for who goes to Valhalla and who goes to Hel qualifies as "prescriptive", doesn't it? Most people find the idea of going to a "good" place rather than a "bad" place in afterlife more pleasant.

[Sand]

I'm very surprised that some of the Americans on this board think the world would be a better place without the U.S.

 

I think the world and the US would be better off if the US just minded their own business and not interfere with the affairs of other countries.

[Azarkon]

That does qualify, sort of, but I wonder if the qualities that would distinguish a Valhallan from a Helian are not just a repeat of what is already common sensical in the culture.

 

Christianity (and all the Abrahamic religions, really) is, by comparison, more or less a religion of morality, in that its historical effect was to disseminate a certain type of moral practice. Christians did X, and they did not do Y. Was that the same for the worshippers of Odin, or were they simply worshippers of Odin by virtue of being Nordic? In that case, the Norse gods would be closer to a mythology, than a religion (though people obviously believed in them at the time).

Edited February 23, 2008 by Azarkon

[Pidesco]

I'm very surprised that some of the Americans on this board think the world would be a better place without the U.S.

 

I think the world and the US would be better off if the US just minded their own business and not interfere with the affairs of other countries.

 

I was talking about Christianity. No Christianity would mean no U.S.

[Gorth]

That does qualify, sort of, but I wonder if the qualities that would distinguish a Valhallan from a Helian are not just a repeat of what is already common sensical in the culture.

 

Christianity (and all the Abrahamic religions, really) is, by comparison, more or less a religion of morality, in that its historical effect was to disseminate a certain type of moral practice. Christians did X, and they did not do Y. Was that the same for the worshippers of Odin, or were they simply worshippers of Odin by virtue of being Nordic? In that case, the Norse gods would be closer to a mythology, than a religion (though people obviously believed in them at the time).

I suppose they were as "real" to the old Norse as the Greek gods were to the ancient Greek. Which means, present just about everywhere with household shrines, church buildings, regular interpretations of signs and omens etc. Basically, if you died fighting, you went to paradise, where you could fight, wench and drink to your hearts content until ragnarok. Hel (or Helheim to be more correct) by comparison was a dull, grey and listless place. Whether a warrior culture creature a warrior pantheon or or a warrior pantheon created a warrior culture I don't know. But you had to spend as much time as possible with an axe in hand, cleaving skulls if you wanted a decent afterlife.

[Azarkon]

 

I can just see someone preferring Norse ethos to modern ones

Edited February 23, 2008 by Azarkon

[samm]

Happy to...

 

Norse and Saxon tribes are somewhat indistinguishable and can happily be thought of as falling under the banner of Germanic tibes, which is to say that they're basically the exact same thing, linguistically at the time they spoke a language which was somewhat indistinguishable, much like American English and actual English, though naturally not exactly the same. Culturally they're almost identical on a grass roots level, beowulf, which is percieved as an Anglo-Saxon epic has absolutely no connection with the anglo-saxons themselves.

 

The Norman were infact of Norse decent, so again its really just more of the same.

 

The Celts, are not a whole other race, infact they've been distingushed as having the same shared common heritage, northern europeans are northern europeans and thus is a more correct perception of these people.

 

To be blunt and to the point how can one consider people to be mongrels, when its just a bunch of the same gene's, same culture same same... It doesn't make sense to me for these tribes to be percieved as being wholistically different, so you can't really say that we're mongrels.

 

Genetically speaking though there ain't much difference between any of us other than small genetic variances, which obviously serve the purpose of evolution, and increased survival in said regions of the planet, for whatever reason... There is no space in the conversation for supremacy. Just doesn't work like that.

As much as I agree with some things you said, I have to contradict that paragraph. Firstly, it seems useless to assume a different "race" as condition for "mongrel" to be an acceptable term, as "human" is a race. Secondly, the cultures and languages between Saxons and Old Norse were already different enough, it's sort of like saying "Italians and French are the same" when backing up that idea with the arguments that the language was "somewhat indistinguishable"* and they have a common cultural background. Yes, the celts do share a common root with them, too, but they split off quite early, so the celtic languages aren't even similar to the ears/eyes of a non-linguists.

 

*it is supposed that the could understand each other to some degree.

Culturally speaking, Europe survived the Middle Ages because of Christianity, and if not for the Christian work ethic *snip*

Europe was in the middle ages because of Christianity, and the "work ethic" as central conception came later, with Calvin and the Reformation. Edited February 23, 2008 by samm

[Pidesco]

Culturally speaking, Europe survived the Middle Ages because of Christianity, and if not for the Christian work ethic *snip*

Europe was in the middle ages because of Christianity.

 

I'd like to hear you explain this one.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

I'm very surprised that some of the Americans on this board think the world would be a better place without the U.S.

 

I was agreeing that Christianity has done more harm then good overall, that's all...

[Sand]

I'm very surprised that some of the Americans on this board think the world would be a better place without the U.S.

 

I think the world and the US would be better off if the US just minded their own business and not interfere with the affairs of other countries.

 

I was talking about Christianity. No Christianity would mean no U.S.

I can live with that.

[@\NightandtheShape/@]

As much as I agree with some things you said, I have to contradict that paragraph. Firstly, it seems useless to assume a different "race" as condition for "mongrel" to be an acceptable term, as "human" is a race. Secondly, the cultures and languages between Saxons and Old Norse were already different enough, it's sort of like saying "Italians and French are the same" when backing up that idea with the arguments that the language was "somewhat indistinguishable"* and they have a common cultural background. Yes, the celts do share a common root with them, too, but they split off quite early, so the celtic languages aren't even similar to the ears/eyes of a non-linguists.

 

I was using the word in a more traditional sense. Not in a sense of anything else, I agree with what you're saying in regards to "race", and "human". The concept itself is hard to articulate accurately in words and not cause any offense or confusion. Thus I made a choice of simplistic wording to get the point across, I stand corrected.

 

Oh I wasn't trying to imply that celt and germanic languages have or had anything in common, sorry for that confusion.

 

All's said there is no real difference between them, so I found the whole Mongrel thing offensive as it's something often purpetuated in England.

*it is supposed that the could understand each other to some degree.

 

Most americans don't understand me when I speak, I have strong northern english accent, the local dialect is full of Old-Norse words, I would imagine that as far as I know of Old-Saxon and Old-Norse, they're close in the same manner that say Finnish and Estonian may be considered to be... By somewhat indistinguishable, I wasn't relating to the idea of them being the same, more that majority of words may infact but so close they're almost indistinguishable. A good example of this is that numbers in Estonian and Finnish are very close, and thus somewhat indistinguishable.

 

As I am no an linguist I don't suppose I can really offer much more than my meager knowledge on the subject...

[@\NightandtheShape/@]

 

I can just see someone preferring Norse ethos to modern ones

 

What exactly is so funny about that?

[Gorth]

Culturally speaking, Europe survived the Middle Ages because of Christianity, and if not for the Christian work ethic *snip*

Europe was in the middle ages because of Christianity.

 

I'd like to hear you explain this one.

I think he meant "Dark Ages" not middle ages

[Dark_Raven]

Europe for Europeans.

 

Nah better to edit this. No need to get put on mod status for saying what I really want to say.

Edited February 23, 2008 by Dark_Raven

[Dark_Raven]

Culturally speaking, Europe survived the Middle Ages because of Christianity, and if not for the Christian work ethic *snip*

Europe was in the middle ages because of Christianity.

 

I'd like to hear you explain this one.

I think he meant "Dark Ages" not middle ages

Indeed. Thanks to the evil religion known as christianity, it brought on the Dark Ages. Instead of humans evolving they devolved thanks to this piece of **** religion and its intolerance to others who do not follow their obscure teachings.

[samm]

NightandtheShape: No offence meant! I probably just stumbled because I have some linguist background

I'd like to hear you explain this one.

Some random things: The prospering cultures of the Islamic world was repelled and partially destroyed for reasons of 'Christianization'. The crusades cost dearly on any party it touched. Most forms of scientific progress was stifled for being blasphemous, and monasteries held a de facto monopoly on any form of education. Thus, knowledge of previous times/cultures/religions was deliberately lost. The conflict between secular and ecclesical forces and the conflicts inside the church wasted ressources, especially in times when they were scarce already.

etc.

 

Concerning "Dark Ages", "Middle Ages": I'm a bit confused; is there a difference in meaning, or just in connotation? Or would "medieval period" be more appropriate/neutral?

Edited February 23, 2008 by samm

[Azarkon]

 

I can just see someone preferring Norse ethos to modern ones

 

What exactly is so funny about that?

 

The thought of you doing Odin's will with axe in hand.

[Pidesco]

I'd like to hear you explain this one.

Some random things: The prospering cultures of the Islamic world was repelled and partially destroyed for reasons of 'Christianization'. The crusades cost dearly on any party it touched. Most forms of scientific progress was stifled for being blasphemous, and monasteries held a de facto monopoly on any form of education. Thus, knowledge of previous times/cultures/religions was deliberately lost. The conflict between secular and ecclesical forces and the conflicts inside the church wasted ressources, especially in times when they were scarce already.

etc.

 

When all those things happened the Middle Ages were already well under way. Unless you can equate Christianity's rise with the fall of the Roman Empire, and the destruction and disappearance of Roman infrastructure, I don't see how you can say Christianity brought about the Middle Ages.