Spiritual Forums

Spiritual Forums (https://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/index.php)
-   North American Indigenous Spirituality (https://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/forumdisplay.php?f=64)
-   -   'white man' reputation as a destroyer (https://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/showthread.php?t=11776)

Honza 27-02-2011 09:23 PM

'white man' reputation as a destroyer
 
In the beginning in Europe 'white men' lived in peace. They lived in tribes like the other people all over the world did.

What changed that?

They were conquered.

The peaceful European tribes were conquered by more aggressive men. If my history is correct then Rome was the first civilisation to conquer the European tribes. The Empire of Rome spread from Italy all over Europe. And they conquered the Celts, and the Goths, and the Gauls, and perhaps I think the Saxons too.

Those tribes were living at peace with nature just like the Native Americans were before they were conquered.

The fact that those tribes were conquered changed everything.

The Romans made a huge impact on Europe.

The ancient European tribes were conquered and in many centuries later they went on to conquer other tribes across the world. The Africans and Native Americans etc.

What I am trying to say is that 'white men' had their fair share of being conquered and killed before they started doing it themselves. They were invaded and conquered first. Long before Africans and Native Americans were.

So it happened here in Europe first. I'm not sure what the history of Asia and the Orient is....how it happened there.

The whole world has been conquered by someone else at one time or another.

White men included.

Triad 28-02-2011 01:51 AM

I fail to see the distinction between Romans and Europeans in the classical sense. I understand that Rome conquered most of Europe and imposed there particular brand of belief upon others but implied in your argument is the idea that perhaps, Romans/Italians are not "white"?

Having said that I would refer you to the Human Genome project....

http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresource...ome/home.shtml

Essentuially it makes clear that skin color is amongst the more insignificant issues related to the human condition..given the image you present is your photograph it is apparent your ancestors came from a very cold climate...air molecules are closer together in such environments (an important reason to check your tire pressure when winter begins) so your nostrils are smaller that those who's ancestors lived in warmer climates...another implications is that your ancestors probably did not migrate to warmer climates during winter .

If anything . I feel migratory behavior, or lack of. is a factor in relation to those of us who engaged in conquest and those who did not.

In time it became not a matter of survival but rather an issue of comfort....

Any thoughts?

psychoslice 28-02-2011 01:57 AM

I don't see color, I just see people.

Honza 28-02-2011 03:29 AM

The issue as I see it is that to many races across the world the 'white people' are seen as destructive. Particularly to Native Americans and perhaps Africans who felt the brunt end of 'white peoples' destructiveness.

My argument was that the original peaceful white people had themselves been conquered by more agressive white people - the Romans.

So the matter of conquest is not just one of white people being agressive, but also of the original white people being the victim of agression.

The spread of invasion across the globe swept white people up in its tide too. By other white people.

In other words, white people themselves know what it is like to be invaded and killed. Because this happened to them thousands of years ago.

Chrysaetos 28-02-2011 09:31 AM

Who are the ''white man''? Weren't Romans white too?

I don't think it has anything to do with skin colour. In the ancient world, there was civilisation and powerful rulers in China as well. There were civilisations in the Americas as well.

What makes the 'whites' different? Only the level of technology. Any society who achieved a great level of technology went on to explore the world..

Human sacrifice was widespread in the ancient world, so I wouldn't say all people were peaceful except the Romans..

What have the Romans ever done for us?

psychoslice 28-02-2011 09:47 AM

What about in Africa where they are hacking each other up with machetes, what about in places like Iraq where they also are cruel to each other, you see its nothing to do with skin color.

Internal Queries 28-02-2011 01:49 PM

what happened to the indigenous tribes of Europe was the march of the Hebrew god concept via Constantine's aggressive form of paganized Christianity.

but yeah, tribes aren't generally peaceful. they tend to war among themselves.

Animus27 28-02-2011 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Honza
In the beginning in Europe 'white men' lived in peace. They lived in tribes like the other people all over the world did.

What changed that?

They were conquered.

The peaceful European tribes were conquered by more aggressive men. If my history is correct then Rome was the first civilisation to conquer the European tribes. The Empire of Rome spread from Italy all over Europe. And they conquered the Celts, and the Goths, and the Gauls, and perhaps I think the Saxons too.

Those tribes were living at peace with nature just like the Native Americans were before they were conquered.

The fact that those tribes were conquered changed everything.

The Romans made a huge impact on Europe.

The ancient European tribes were conquered and in many centuries later they went on to conquer other tribes across the world. The Africans and Native Americans etc.

What I am trying to say is that 'white men' had their fair share of being conquered and killed before they started doing it themselves. They were invaded and conquered first. Long before Africans and Native Americans were.

So it happened here in Europe first. I'm not sure what the history of Asia and the Orient is....how it happened there.

The whole world has been conquered by someone else at one time or another.

White men included.

Yes, I am sure the Celts taking the heads of their enemies as trophies was just a misunderstanding :confused4:

The northern Europeans; the Celts and Germanic tribes included were never nature loving hippies in the sense that we might think. They were almost always tribes and towns that had a war-like culture. Julius Caesar commented on the Celts savage style of warfare and how they were formidable opponents, even against extremely organized Roman armies.

I don't really know where such an idea came from. A simple reading of history can dispel it easily.

Time 28-02-2011 07:34 PM

Honza, I do see your point. Although I do have some problems with some of your facts.

Yes, most civs were conquered in one way or another. It happened to the Egyptians, greeks, Asian cultures and the rest. But it isnt always by man. There was a civilizaion around the black sea before it was formed. When the Mediterranian flooded, and created the black sea, they were forced from their way of life by the changing climate, as well as flooded lands. Most civilizations were brought down not by war, but by climate and weather related problems.


From meso american cultures ( they were already reduced by starvation, war and other problems before the spanish got there, they meerly finished them off. But the fact is the climate forced them into copetition with other tribes, and starved them), anazazzi, omec, early european, the climate wiped out more peoples then war has.

I dont see how you can call most European tribes peaceful. War was prevalant in those times. The celts practiced uman sacrifice, early germanic tribes were war like, Romans CRAVED valour from defeating peoples. Alexander the great was a "god", Persia didnt attain a vast empire by sharing kittens and sandwitches.

Even the asian countries were conquored by eachother. The chinese had a rich history of trying to take over other countries. Same with mongolia.

The only civ that I can think of that was even some what peaceful wre Native americans/Canadians. Even that is a slippery slope. The iroqois were very territorial, and always had small fights with bordering tribes. The Ojibway, were |TERRIFIED fo the Mohawks ( Iroquois). They also practiced human sacrifice ( only "worthy warriors"). They didnt get "savage" untill, the europeans came. And even then, the europeans wiped half of them out inadvertanly by disease. They also wipped most of them out by burning the forest for agriculture, and also , to try to "exterminate the native threat".

Even today, attrocities are done by all humanity. Hate knows no boundries, and doesnt discriscriminate ( it literaly does, but i mean figuritivly), whether its in africa north america or asia it happens every where. I will admit, that almost all of these types of deeds were done prominently but europeans ( inquisition, crusades, extermination of pagan tribes), but there have been many liek east timor, or china and north korea, burma, the middle east africa, south america and here in noth america recently. Its all accross the board.

it does seem that at certain points in our history it was done by certain peoples, persia, rome, briton/france/spain/dutch etc, north americans, asians..... But that doesnt mean that its fair to paint that notion with a broad brush. No one race, or civilization isnt guilty of taking over, or wiping out a peoples. Its a human problem, not a races problem.

Honza 28-02-2011 07:43 PM

Good post! Time. Thanks. That puts it in perspective.


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:14 PM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
(c) Spiritual Forums