Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
She sounds wonderful, though I'd expect nothing less with such a notable pedigree in acedemia, and it's always good to get a great tutor who knows there stuff, and not someone who could be channeling Gilderoy Lockhart from Harry Potter.Thats might impressive, the mans a genius.... well actually, I don't even know his name (you mean there was a time when enzymes caused itching? A good lifes work I guess to fix such a problem.) Don't tell him I said that though 😉
The enzymes used to digest food in washing powder are in (or were in the seventies) little micro bubbles that don't actually leave and properly contact the cloth. The guys name was Martin Chaplain he was hilarious and used to buy his students a bear sometimes. He's written some books. But his not famous like Bronowsky.
Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
The enzymes used to digest food in washing powder are in (or were in the seventies) little micro bubbles that don't actually leave and properly contact the cloth. The guys name was Martin Chaplain he was hilarious and used to buy his students a bear sometimes. He's written some books. But his not famous like Bronowsky.
He sounds like a top notch sort, any lecturer that'll have a beer with the students in good in my books. I think I'll have a look at some of his books, I imagine his area of expertise was chemistry or the like?
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
He sounds like a top notch sort, any lecturer that'll have a beer with the students in good in my books. I think I'll have a look at some of his books, I imagine his area of expertise was chemistry or the like?
Enzymology, Food Science is his other big thing he developed some of the enzymes involved in novel Chocs. He wasn't the only one who stopped enzymes itching some others came up with different methods, his was the most used though.
I think something a lot of people don't understand is that once something goes in a new direction, evolutionarily speaking, it may be different from the original model, but it is not necessarily "better". Fish for example—freshwater fish are technically more evolved than saltwater fish, but will still die if you put them in the ocean.
White skin evolved from darker skin and so is "more evolved", but a white person is still worse off than say, a latino, in the sun. The only real advantage to lighter skin is that is requires less energy to produce the pigment in it, since there is not as much.
Originally posted by Darth Revan
I think something a lot of people don't understand is that once something goes in a new direction, evolutionarily speaking, it may be different from the original model, but it is not necessarily "better". Fish for example—freshwater fish are technically more evolved than saltwater fish, but will still die if you put them in the ocean.White skin evolved from darker skin and so is "more evolved", but a white person is still worse off than say, a latino, in the sun. The only real advantage to lighter skin is that is requires less energy to produce the pigment in it, since there is not as much.
It's not more evolved it's laterally evolved Revan, it's evolved to better suit a situation, it's not superior in another situation, like bright blazing sunlight.
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Define "Early European" - are we talking about the tribes encounted by say the Roman Empire, or even earlier? Or perhaps later?
Well I was think more so of the tribes that invaded the Roman Empire between 4th and 6th centuries. I believe they were made up of mostly the Jutes and the Brits. "Nowadays"..😉..Many Germans, Brits, and Scotts are actually considered to be descended from these people.
Very barberous uncivilized race, and nasty too. Many of the sexually transmitted diseases that we know of today, can actually be traced to these people. However as barberic as they were, they did manage to salvage what was left of the Roman Empire..and then claim centuries later that they were the originator's of many of Roman/Greeks technological advances. Geez..I feel like I'm in my European history class again...boy those were the days.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Well I was think more so of the tribes that invaded the Roman Empire between 4th and 6th centuries. I believe they were made up of mostly the Jutes and the Brits. "Nowadays"..😉..Many Germans, Brits, and Scotts are actually considered to be descended from these people.Very barberous uncivilized race, and nasty too. Many of the sexually transmitted diseases that we know of today, can actually be traced to these people. However as barberic as they were, they did manage to salvage what was left of the Roman Empire..and then claim centuries later that they were the originator's of many of Roman/Greeks technological advances. Geez..I feel like I'm in my European history class again...boy those were the days.
cultuarally vicious like the visigoths does not make them uncivilised Whobd they had excellent artisans and craftsmen.
Originally posted by Arabian Knight
And what does this have to do with whites of 2005?
In relation to the "whites of 2005"..I was just making a point about "evolution" being degenerative..clearly many of the peoples from ancient African/Arabic/Asian cultures, were more "advanced" than that of their "white barbarous" descendants.
Just look at many ancient Egyptians and Persians, and even the Nubains. At least they had discovered that "bathing" was something that wouldn't cause harm..long before any of the "barbarians"
So my thought process was..is it possible..that this "white gene" caused some sort of degenerative effect on those who later became known as "white"? What do you think?
Originally posted by whobdamandog
In relation to the "whites of 2005"..I was just making a point about "evolution" being degenerative..clearly many of the peoples from ancient African/Arabic/Asian cultures, were more "advanced" than that of their "white barbarous" descendants.Just look at many ancient Egyptians and Persians, and even the Nubains. At least they had discovered that "bathing" was something that wouldn't cause harm..long before any of the "barbarians"
So my thought process was..is it possible..that this "white gene" caused some sort of degenerative effect on those who later became known as "white"? What do you think?
Apart from the Nubians the other races you mention also like the visigoths built their societies on Slavery. Visigoths bathed. Not really as most races have contributed at some point mutation in humans is simply not that quick for a whole population.
Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
cultuarally vicious like the visigoths does not make them uncivilised Whobd they had excellent artisans and craftsmen.
I don't know Whirly..I would call them very uncivilised, even by Roman standards. And as we know..the Romans were some pretty wild people. Most of the "germanic tribes" were considered pretty animalistic and barbaric. But they were some hella good fighters. A lot of them were hired as mercenaries by the Roman Empire, and they fought in those Gladiator Arena's. Other than that..the Roman's pretty much ridiculed their language and overall stupidity.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
I don't know Whirly..I would call them very uncivilised, even by Roman standards. And as we know..the Romans were some pretty wild people. Most of the "germanic tribes" were considered pretty animalistic and barbaric. But they were some hella good fighters. A lot of them were hired as mercenaries by the Roman Empire, and they fought in those Gladiator Arena's. Other than that..the Roman's pretty much ridiculed their language and overall stupidity.
History was written by the winners, the visigoths just got sick of the romans, the term barbarian is very misleading, for instance Islamic Doctors understood the circulatory system 500 years before European Doctors.
Newton, Gauss etc etc by your thinking all evolved from these white savages. Race simply is not that simple as you well know. 😉
Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
History was written by the winners, the visigoths just got sick of the romans, the term barbarian is very misleading, for instance Islamic Doctors understood the circulatory system 500 years before European Doctors.Newton, Gauss etc etc by your thinking all evolved from these white savages. Race simply is not that simple as you well know. 😉
True. Race is just as much linked to culture and religion, as it is to genetics. Many people don't take these factors into account though, when conducting their studies.
Technically evolution and genetic superiority/inferiority have nothing to do with the degree of civilisation of a group of people. It is influenced by culture, geography, climate, other cultures around and many other factors.
Now the Romans are seen as an epitome of civilisation - though they weren't really nice people, but they had a lot of luck, they were tenacious, hard working and sure of themselves with a strong military, so they built an awesome culture that dominated the minds and hearts of people for a long time. However, if you compared the Roman empire to say the Greek city states at their hight then Roman culture was significantly more shallow, less advanced in terms of philosophy, science, construction, art and so forth. Compare either to the Egyptian Empire and both look vastly superior, though neither lasted nearly as long, or say, built anything like the pyramids - is this because the Egyptians were superior? No rather the Egyptians were fortunate that there were few real enemies that could challenge them, the moment significantly advanced outsiders came along they quickly were taken over (by the Greeks, by the Romans, by the Muslims, in fact even by certain "barbaric"cultures during intermediate periods)
All well and good, but the Romans had a kind of nationalist pride and insecurity, they mocked the Greeks, all the while envying their culture, the Greeks considered any non-Greek a "barbarian", that was the sole term for non-Greek. So the way in which "civilised" nations looked at others is not really indicative of the true state of things, rather it is reflective of things such as nation pride, jealousy and propaganda.
Now the European tribes in question - those that emerged in the later stages of the Western Roman Empire, could be seen as barbaric because they didn't have the trappings of state - however they did have a strong culture, they had religion, they had a military that was increasingly able to outfight the Romans and as the Roman's fell apart they took over, with great ease, the abandoned machinery of state. This can be seen with groups like the Franks who united a fractured Gaul into what would become France, or read Sidonius Appolinarus, a writer of panygerics at the time, who was entertained by the "Barbarian" king Theodoric, and wondered at his level of civilisation, describing him like a Roman of old.
Now it is something of a misconception that barbarians alone are responsible for Rome downfall (it was very much the fault of the Roman Empire itself, the tribes just hurried the process a bit.) Now the Visigoths for example, under Aliric had a strong national unity, and were quite political, and yes bloody, but with a dynamic culture. Barbarians compared to Rome, but not monsters or animals - remembering that eventually Rome under the likes of Theodosius and later Stilicho (the generalissimo) made deals with them in order to use the Goths as auxilia soldiers in return for land for the Goths to settle (Aliric sacked Rome later only after making greater demands which were refused, as he had threatened to do and the sack itself wasn't as terrible as made out) - all the while trying to negotiate a better deal for his people. After his death such a deal was made, and they were settled off in southern Gaul.
So it is important to take it with a grain of salt - just because the tribes had sacrifices and weren't nice and clean like Romans or Greeks, it can't be denied they had a strong culture, politics, religion, as well as being skilled in areas like art, or horsemanship and weapon crafting. Not fully civilised, but not nearly as much barbarians as made out.
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Technically evolution and genetic superiority/inferiority have nothing to do with the degree of civilisation of a group of people. It is influenced by culture, geography, climate, other cultures around and many other factors.Now the Romans are seen as an epitome of civilisation - though they weren't really nice people, but they had a lot of luck, they were tenacious, hard working and sure of themselves with a strong military, so they built an awesome culture that dominated the minds and hearts of people for a long time. However, if you compared the Roman empire to say the Greek city states at their hight then Roman culture was significantly more shallow, less advanced in terms of philosophy, science, construction, art and so forth. Compare either to the Egyptian Empire and both look vastly superior, though neither lasted nearly as long, or say, built anything like the pyramids - is this because the Egyptians were superior? No rather the Egyptians were fortunate that there were few real enemies that could challenge them, the moment significantly advanced outsiders came along they quickly were taken over (by the Greeks, by the Romans, by the Muslims, in fact even by certain "barbaric"cultures during intermediate periods)
All well and good, but the Romans had a kind of nationalist pride and insecurity, they mocked the Greeks, all the while envying their culture, the Greeks considered any non-Greek a "barbarian", that was the sole term for non-Greek. So the way in which "civilised" nations looked at others is not really indicative of the true state of things, rather it is reflective of things such as nation pride, jealousy and propaganda.
Now the European tribes in question - those that emerged in the later stages of the Western Roman Empire, could be seen as barbaric because they didn't have the trappings of state - however they did have a strong culture, they had religion, they had a military that was increasingly able to outfight the Romans and as the Roman's fell apart they took over, with great ease, the abandoned machinery of state. This can be seen with groups like the Franks who united a fractured Gaul into what would become France, or read Sidonius Appolinarus, a writer of panygerics at the time, who was entertained by the "Barbarian" king Theodoric, and wondered at his level of civilisation, describing him like a Roman of old.
Now it is something of a misconception that barbarians alone are responsible for Rome downfall (it was very much the fault of the Roman Empire itself, the tribes just hurried the process a bit.) Now the Visigoths for example, under Aliric had a strong national unity, and were quite political, and yes bloody, but with a dynamic culture. Barbarians compared to Rome, but not monsters or animals - remembering that eventually Rome under the likes of Theodosius and later Stilicho (the generalissimo) made deals with them in order to use the Goths as auxilia soldiers in return for land for the Goths to settle (Aliric sacked Rome later only after making greater demands which were refused, as he had threatened to do and the sack itself wasn't as terrible as made out) - all the while trying to negotiate a better deal for his people. After his death such a deal was made, and they were settled off in southern Gaul.
So it is important to take it with a grain of salt - just because the tribes had sacrifices and weren't nice and clean like Romans or Greeks, it can't be denied they had a strong culture, politics, religion, as well as being skilled in areas like art, or horsemanship and weapon crafting. Not fully civilised, but not nearly as much barbarians as made out.
Man someone has been typing in "Barbarian" in the search engines...lol. I like this part the best..
Now the European tribes in question - those that emerged in the later stages of the Western Roman Empire, could be seen as barbaric because they didn't have the trappings of state -
Translated..
They were scavengers/hunter gatherer's who were to dumb to form organized politicol systems.
Eventually after the Visigoths took over, they started becoming a bit more civilised...still, bathing seemed to be a concept that wasn't understood by them until about a 1000 years later..and even then..they still only bathed few times a year. Hell, if you look at some of the accounts of the Romans and cultures that followed..these people stunk all to be damned. They were a disease ridden people..and that was one of the main reason's as to why they were able to wipe out people so damn quickly. Spreading all their diseases from place to place. This helped kill of their opposition real quickly.
Moving on..their descendants later on stole powder from the asia..and as they always do, managed to create some sort of weapon out of it. (ie guns, cannons, etc) being the good "Barbarians" that they are..always good at destroying, pillaging, and stealing from other cultures.
So anyway..I guess in so many words your answer to my question is "yes"..they were indeed a bunch of "Barberous" thugs..and to add to that..most of the technology that was acquired through them over the years, was stolen from other cultures.
Question:
So do you think this animalistic traits of destroying & scavenging might have anything to do with this "white gene"? Is it possible that these people could be examples of reverse-evolution"?
Hehehe. I suspect it's not I who have been typing barbarian into the search engine...
My comment about the trappings of state come directly from my notes, which in turn are synthesised from the lectures given by the head of the course in question (Macquarie University, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire in the West - Dr. Andrew Gillett.) Now I will admit I am fairly agog at the level my phrase has been dumbed down, and the incorrectness of it. Lacking the trappings of state is vastly different from "being to dumb to form organised political systems", these people were far from dumb. They had politics, and were usually governed by a monarchy like hierarchy, a simple, suitable political system for them - the danger is to say "well, compared to the Romans they had no political system, or what they did have was laughably simple" because that forces the tribes into artificial comparisons, and I would like to point out that the Romans "unbarbaric organised political system" was oftens it's biggest drawback - usurpers, anyone? Draconian bureaucracy and mad emperors? And ineffective and greedy senatethatr had long since lost any authority outside of coinage? Leaders dying with no clear successor and having a civil war follow as a result as various elements of the imperial court vied for power? The fact is what the barbarians had was perfect for them, they didn't need something like Imperial Roman government, or the strange democracy of Greece, or the painful god kings of Egypt.
As to bathing, well, that's bad, and very backward, but not a sign of not being civilised, just having a poor culture and understanding of hygiene. After all, as you said, well into the Middle Ages with England and France and the like there was little concept of hygiene - so would you say they at that point were "barbarians"due to a lack of baths, despite being settled, possessing complex trade and diplomatic interactions, feudal governments and advanced agricultural systems, skilled armies, impressive industry and state religions? Yes, they picked up bathing from the Muslims after the Crusades, but the point is that civilisation is not a term that can be held back for the biggest and shiniest - there are various degrees of it, and the term barbarian is over used, and often applied to cultures that were less refined and advanced.
Technology acquired through scavenging? Quite correct - if you look at science and todays society you discover that everything is built on something else - everything starts somewhere, Christianity, Islam, pagan religions, all have bits and pieces "stolen" from earlier times. Technology is the same - the Romans, Arabs, Greeks, Egyptians - adaption. The Romans took alot from the Greeks, who took alot from the Egyptians. The "barbarians tribes" took a lot from the Roman's, though I should point out that as things changed the Romans came to adopt and adapt Barbarian military tactics into their own increasingly outdated armies (by the fall some historian consider the Roman army to have been little more then barbarians in legionary uniforms.) Some call it scavenging, I would consider it simply natural progress, and it's not limited to white tribes.
So do you think this animalistic traits of destroying & scavenging might have anything to do with this "white gene"? Is it possible that these people could be examples of reverse-evolution"?
No, just like I don't think there is a black gene that makes a person less intelligent (as the argument once went.) And out of interest, where do the ancient Romans, the slavs, the ancient Greeks and the Middle Easterners fit into this? Their ancestors technically underwent the same skin colour change long before we came to know them and their history. Now firstly this was a minor change in skin pigmentation - which in no way influences civilisation or a persons actions, or a group of peoples actions. Likewise war and destruction have been a constant, it's not limited to white people, people have always fought and killed - greed, need, anger whatever, skin colour might be given as a reason, but that's laughable. And as to scavenging, as I said above, it's not unique - every culture tends to do it. End of WWII? Russia, England, the US, all poached German scientists and knowledge. China adopts military strategy and technology after seeing the more modern Japanese army fighting and winning against their outmoded Chinese forces. The Native Americans when they did try to fight? The eventually procurred some guns from their enemies. The Etruscans traded with the Greeks for the top quality Greek pottery, all the while learning how to make it themselves, eventually they fight the Greeks, and despite loosing this trade source the pottery quality doesn't drop, why? Because they had "scavenged"the know how. So what I am saying is I don't think there is in any way a white (or black or yellow) gene that makes people act the way your suggesting.