|
Emanuel Collective posted:Tangentially related, I always found this map fascinating and wish we had more up to date data. I'm very curious what that one "other" county in Vermont is. It's the only non-Catholic in all of New England or New York, and yet it's something that's otherwise so small, it doesn't register as its own category. I'm guessing it's Congregational/United Church of Christ.
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2013 18:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 22:59 |
|
|
SaltyJesus posted:What is the pocket of Protestantism in Hungary?
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2013 18:51
|
|
|
Barudak posted:
I always enjoy it when Americans try to apply their modern racial categories to other times and places. What the gently caress does it even mean to make claims about Jesus and his apostles being 'white' or not? That concept didn't exist yet. It's just like the retarded racial 'controversy' about Ancient Egypt that has literally no meaning or relevance outside of the United States. I'm a little surprised at this racial hatred coming from the Cajuns, actually. It seems that they were already thoroughly Americanized by the 1960's.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2013 18:55
|
|
|
DrBouvenstein posted:I'm very curious what that one "other" county in Vermont is. It's the only non-Catholic in all of New England or New York, and yet it's something that's otherwise so small, it doesn't register as its own category. Looks like it has a #8 in there so that would be UCC according to the key.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2013 18:57
|
|
|
What's the racial controversy about Ancient Egypt? Greeks versus indigenous or what?
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2013 18:58
|
|
|
Davincie posted:What's the racial controversy about Ancient Egypt? Greeks versus indigenous or what? "Do they count as black?"
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2013 19:02
|
|
|
Shouldn't that be settled by the fact ancient Egyptians painted Nubians black, but not themselves?
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2013 19:12
|
|
|
Davincie posted:What's the racial controversy about Ancient Egypt? Greeks versus indigenous or what?
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2013 19:23
|
|
|
Also, Ancient Egypt existed for about 3000 years and was invaded by foreign nations multiple times, so the question of what ethnicity they were is complicated because they probably weren't one thing throughout their existence. There was at least one Nubian dynasty, who I don't think anyone would argue weren't black, and for the last few centuries of its existence, starting with Alexander the Great, the pharaohs were Macedonian. Speaking of Macedonia,  I think it's come up before, but the Greeks are angry that there's a country that calls itself Macedonia, because they consider the name "Macedonia" part of their national heritage and use it to refer to the northern region of Greece. Apparently there's been an ongoing pissing contest between the two countries since Macedonia split off from Yugoslavia.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2013 19:31
|
|
|
Right. But wouldn't the whole white men's burden (proving that there were civilized people and the whites didn't uplift them) thing be easily disprovable by giving Ethiopia and ancient Mali (among others) as examples?
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2013 19:31
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:See, that would be an ethnic controversy. The racial controversy is about Upper Egypt being inhabited by Nubians, who are dark skinned, and Lower Egypt being inhabited by lighter skinned people, and the question of where the source of the Ancient Egyptian civilization is. At least that's my understanding. I get why African-Americans would want the source to be black African though, given the prevailing narrative of black Africa just being a bunch of savages in loincloths until Europeans showed up in the 19th century, but it only really become a big deal within the context of a society that makes such a big deal about skin color. It's not even that complex. Some people (plenty of non-black people included) advocate for the Ancient Egyptians having been black. Not some of them, not all of them some of the time. All of them. It's an argument that comes up fairly frequently, and while there are people that put thought into it and still favour it, most of the time you hear it from people who have no loving idea what they're talking about. It isn't really a controversy even 'cause no actual egyptologist takes the view at all. That said, cultural appropriation and civilizations' historical ties are both pretty important and conversely we shouldn't be acting like the Egyptians had any ties to Europe either. Or like, that any early ancient near-eastern civilization had ties to Europe. And there also were actually lots of really developed African civilizations so I wish people'd try to refute it by bringing up those instead more often or something. made of bees posted:Also, Ancient Egypt existed for about 3000 years and was invaded by foreign nations multiple times, so the question of what ethnicity they were is complicated because they probably weren't one thing throughout their existence. There was at least one Nubian dynasty, who I don't think anyone would argue weren't black, and for the last few centuries of its existence, starting with Alexander the Great, the pharaohs were Macedonian. Ancient Egyptians are ethnically pretty much the same as modern Egyptians. It was a very cosmopolitan society though, so there was a significant minority of Black-Africans, and the Kushite Pharoahs during their dynasty did plenty to distinguish Egypt themselves. Koramei fucked around with this message at 19:39 on Oct 3, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2013 19:35
|
|
|
BerkerkLurk posted:I was wondering that as well. According to Wikipedia, the country was Catholic since the 11th century, became Lutheran and Calvinist during the Protestant Reformation, and by the end of the 16th century the Jesuits had successfully counter-reformationed the country except for those Eastern bits. Wiki also suggests that the division is related to some parts of modern-day Hungary belonging for quite some time to Ottoman vassal states like Transylvania, which put a damper on the counter-reformation in those areas. Debrecen in particular ended up getting the nickname "Calvinist Rome".
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2013 19:37
|
|
|
System Metternich posted:The best part is how the revolution began... I'd not heard that before; those stories were awesome. The Bavarian Wittelsbach monarchy always seemed pretty cool (even the crazy one just wanted to be left alone to build sweet palaces  ). I still don't understand what made them change their minds about their historical Prussian enemies and agree to call the Hohenzollern "oh hey has it been 30 years already, welp, time to drown Europe in blood again" family their Emperors.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2013 19:39
|
|
|
Koramei posted:It's not even that complex. Some people (plenty of non-black people included) advocate for the Ancient Egyptians having been black. Not some of them, not all of them some of the time. All of them. It's an argument that comes up fairly frequently, and while there are people that put thought into it and still favour it, most of the time you hear it from people who have no loving idea what they're talking about. It isn't really a controversy even 'cause no actual egyptologist takes the view at all. Yeah, usually when I see it, especially from white people, it's a smug, "The Egyptians were black just like Jesus, gently caress you dad everything you know is wrong" thing that differentiates itself from a dumb assumption without actually being less dumb.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2013 19:45
|
|
|
Davincie posted:Right. But wouldn't the whole white men's burden (proving that there were civilized people and the whites didn't uplift them) thing be easily disprovable by giving Ethiopia and ancient Mali (among others) as examples? On all Greek maps modern republic of Macedonia is labeled FYROM (Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia). Some Greeks go so far as to call it Republic of Skopje (after its capital). Wiki has this to say: Wikipedia posted:It became a member of the United Nations in 1993 but, as a result of a dispute with Greece over its name, it was admitted under the provisional reference of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia[9][10] (поранешна Југословенска Република Македонија,[11] transliterated: Poranešna Jugoslovenska Republika Makedonija), sometimes abbreviated as FYROM.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2013 19:48
|
|
|
Mu Cow posted:Here you go (click for larger). Thanks. I was mostly hoping to see a sea of blue start chipping away at Texas but I guess I'll have to wait for the next map. The religious map is put into better perspective when you weigh it against the % of people attending church at least once a week: 
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2013 20:00
|
|
|
Koramei posted:And there also were actually lots of really developed African civilizations so I wish people'd try to refute it by bringing up those instead more often or something.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2013 20:05
|
|
|
Koramei posted:Ancient Egyptians are ethnically pretty much the same as modern Egyptians. Why do you say this? Arabians didn't invade the country for hundreds of years after the Ancient Egpytian dynasties crumbled.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2013 20:06
|
|
|
Emanuel Collective posted:Why do you say this? Arabians didn't invade the country for hundreds of years after the Ancient Egpytian dynasties crumbled. I'm not sure I understand your post, but he's right. Egypt has always been a densely populated nation, and there is almost certainly a very close genetic link between its ancient and modern populations.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2013 20:11
|
|
|
Phlegmish posted:I'm not sure I understand your post, but he's right. Egypt has always been a densely populated nation, and there is almost certainly a very close genetic link between its ancient and modern populations. I'd always figured that the Arab invasions dramatically changed the ethnic makeup of Egypt, just as they did every other middle eastern nation. I wasn't aware that modern Egypt largely retained the link to the pre-Arabic population.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2013 20:16
|
|
|
made of bees posted:Also, Ancient Egypt existed for about 3000 years and was invaded by foreign nations multiple times, so the question of what ethnicity they were is complicated because they probably weren't one thing throughout their existence. There was at least one Nubian dynasty, who I don't think anyone would argue weren't black, and for the last few centuries of its existence, starting with Alexander the Great, the pharaohs were Macedonian. Yeah, the mists of time invite generalisations which are just insane in the context of the massive number of people and years they paint with a single brush. And the monolithic civilisation we refer to as Ancient Egypt is perhaps of all those civilisations the most staggeringly ancient. It's hard to even conceive how broad a time period Ancient Egypt stretched over, but when you consider that the last Pharaoh Cleopatra was born in 69BC but was still born closer to the moon landing than to the building of the Great Pyramid of Giza, you get an inkling of how stupefyingly old Egypt is.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2013 20:22
|
|
|
Did the Islamic conquests have that profound an effect on the other middle eastern populations? I always thought Arab was more of a race than an ethnicity. I dunno, maybe I'm wrong on that. But I know that the conquests didn't have that profound an effect on Egypt. Modern Egyptians aren't identical genetically to their ancient counterparts, but they're similar enough that you can call them the same people. We know this because Ancient Egyptians left us with thousands of wonderful time capsules containing their DNA, in case you're wondering. Unless I'm completely flubbing this, which I have a tendency to do. It has been a while since I read anything on this topic. Koramei fucked around with this message at 20:25 on Oct 3, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2013 20:23
|
|
|
The Arabs were a collection of semi-nomadic tribes, I don't think they had the numbers to truly overrun the established agricultural centers in Egypt and Mesopotamia. If you take a look at Syrians, for example, you'll find that many of them differ from peninsular Arabs in subtle ways. More of a mixture between Indo-European and Semitic phenotypes. It's similar to how Europeans never managed to displace the indigenous peoples in Mesoamerica and the Andes, because those areas were already home to complex, densely populated societies.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2013 20:30
|
|
|
Koramei posted:Did the Islamic conquests have that profound an effect on the other middle eastern populations? I always thought Arab was more of a race than an ethnicity. I dunno, maybe I'm wrong on that. But I know that the conquests didn't have that profound an effect on Egypt. Modern Egyptians aren't identical genetically to their ancient counterparts, but they're similar enough that you can call them the same people.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2013 20:33
|
|
|
That's a lot of church-going!  "How often do you attend church?" asked to Danes above age 16 Red: A couple of times per month or more Grey: Occasionally Black: Only on certain religious days (ie christmas, easter)
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2013 20:37
|
|
|
Koramei posted:I always thought Arab was more of a race than an ethnicity. FWIW, this is what wikipedia has to say: Wiki posted:Distribution of Arabic as sole official language (green) and one of several official or national languages (blue). Thus, anyone considered "Arabic" under the first prong is someone who can trace their lineage back to the Arabian tribes. I'd always figured that this was the case. After all, modern Tunisians and Algerians probably don't have much in common with the Carthaginians. Contrast Arabs in North Africa with, say, the Berbers. This is all circumstantial though, so I'd love to find something concrete.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2013 20:55
|
|
|
Phlegmish posted:I always enjoy it when Americans try to apply their modern racial categories to other times and places. What the gently caress does it even mean to make claims about Jesus and his apostles being 'white' or not? That concept didn't exist yet. It's just like the retarded racial 'controversy' about Ancient Egypt that has literally no meaning or relevance outside of the United States. There really aren't Cajuns in New Orleans. They live in the bayous which are out in the country. They were quite racist historically, although it had more to do with being poor and marginalized and wanting to have power for once than any assimilation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2013 21:24
|
|
|
Koramei posted:Did the Islamic conquests have that profound an effect on the other middle eastern populations? I always thought Arab was more of a race than an ethnicity. I dunno, maybe I'm wrong on that. But I know that the conquests didn't have that profound an effect on Egypt. Modern Egyptians aren't identical genetically to their ancient counterparts, but they're similar enough that you can call them the same people. IIRC the Arabian invaders mostly stuck to their own camps which later evolved into villages/cities and didn't mix all that much with the local population. I'm far from an expert though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2013 21:29
|
|
|
Barudak posted:And I swear if any of you try to go "Well technically, Barudak, Healy was the first African American Bishop" I will respond to you that he lived life as an Irish American so Perry here is the first openly African American bishop. I might be reading this wrong but are you implying that it would be strange or surprising that there was no African American bishop for a long time? Only about 5% of African Americans are Catholic and while I don't have any numbers for past years in the USA, today African Americans make up 4% of Catholics in the USA. While that doesn't mean that the Catholic African Americans are somehow less worthy of being bishop for that reason, it's not too surprising ethnic/cultural groups with a small percent of Catholics didn't quickly gain any representation in higher offices.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2013 22:02
|
|
|
Pretty sure he's just driving home the fact that American racism in the 60's* was a big loving deal. *Let's not get into how racist America is or isn't today, unless you want to do it in map form.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2013 22:57
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Interactive map of South Africa showing race and language: http://dotmap.adrianfrith.com/
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2013 22:59
|
|
|
Mu Cow posted:Interactive map of South Africa showing race and language: http://dotmap.adrianfrith.com/ What's the difference between "Coloured" and "Black African?" I would guess Coloured meant dark-skinned people not represented by the other categories, but they seem too numerous to be a group like that. Is it just a term for Afrikaans-speaking Black Africans, as opposed to speakers of native languages?
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2013 23:09
|
|
|
Pakled posted:What's the difference between "Coloured" and "Black African?" I would guess Coloured meant dark-skinned people not represented by the other categories, but they seem too numerous to be a group like that. Is it just a term for Afrikaans-speaking Black Africans, as opposed to speakers of native languages? My understanding was that Coloured meant descendents of Europeans and Africans. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coloured PrinceRandom fucked around with this message at 23:14 on Oct 3, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2013 23:12
|
|
|
Mu Cow posted:Interactive map of South Africa showing race and language: http://dotmap.adrianfrith.com/ Why is there such a stark border between isiXhosa and isiZulu?
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2013 23:12
|
|
|
IIRC Coloured is a catch all for people who aren't black but aren't white. So mixed race people, Asians, Filipinos, etc. During Apartheid it was kind of like a middle caste between the Boers and the Africans. Some actual white people were redefined as Coloured as well because they had pretty stringent quality standards for what passed as "white". If your skin tone was too dark, or your hair too curly, even if both of your parents were white you could still be redefined as Coloured and you would lose a bunch of rights and such. People really seem to have forgotten how hosed up Apartheid era South Africa was and continues to be to this day. e: wait, all the other Asian races get lumped in with the Indians right? rscott fucked around with this message at 23:17 on Oct 3, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2013 23:15
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I'd not heard that before; those stories were awesome. The Bavarian Wittelsbach monarchy always seemed pretty cool (even the crazy one just wanted to be left alone to build sweet palaces It was a combination of things. A big factor was the general nationalist trend prevalent during the time. Bavaria had fought alongside Austria in 1866 against the Prussian aggressor and lost; many people yearnig for a unified Germany accepted this as a sign that such a new country could only exist under Prussian leadership and with the exclusion of Austria. While a majority of Catholic Bavaria didn't share this sentiment at all, many Protestants in Franconia (the northern part of Bavaria) and the bourgeoisie in the larger cities supported that notion; especially the second group was able to exert significant influence. The nationalist fervour that swept all German states with the French declaration of war in 1870 (and the cunning diplomacy and PR of Bismark beforehand, in particular the publication of a shortened version of a telegraph by the French emperor which made it sound much more aggressive and threatening) made it pretty much impossible for the Bavarian authorities not to join in the war effort. The fact that Bavarian territory extended to the French border at the time and therefore was directly part of the front certainly played into that. The second important aspect was money, plain and simple. While Ludwig II did build all those awesome palaces, he didn't give two fucks about finances while doing so. The result was that Bavaria was up to its neck in debt. Prussia had annexed Hanover four years before and had gathered the extensive possessions of the previous ruling dynasty of the Welfs into a single fond. Bismarck promised the Bavarian government large sums out of that fond in exchange for an agreement to the formation of a new German Empire. This new Empire still was widely unpopular with many Bavarians, and so Ludwig (and all of his ministers) symbollicaly refused to attend the proclamation of the new Empire in Versailles. Bavaria also got lots of so-called "particular rights" to sweeten the deal, like an own postal office, an own rail agency, an own military and even the right to the (limited) continuation of an own foreign policy with embassies in (I believe) Vienna, Rome, Paris, St Petersburg and Bern. While those special rights never were able to threaten to the unity of the new Empire, they were an important factor in keeping alive the feeling of Bavarian distinctiveness that endures even now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2013 23:23
|
|
|
System Metternich posted:Bavaria also got lots of so-called "particular rights" to sweeten the deal, like an own postal office, an own rail agency, an own military and even the right to the (limited) continuation of an own foreign policy with embassies in (I believe) Vienna, Rome, Paris, St Petersburg and Bern. Servus, native German speaker! I hate to be that guy, but I thought you might want to improve on your English grammar a bit: replace every instance of "an" in that sentence with "its" (without apostrophe).
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2013 00:03
|
|
|
SaltyJesus posted:On all Greek maps modern republic of Macedonia is labeled FYROM (Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia). Some Greeks go so far as to call it Republic of Skopje (after its capital). Wiki has this to say: This isn't just a Greek thing. Most Macedonian expat communities have this big beautiful flag that has large parts of Greece and Bulgaria as belonging to the historic greater Macedonia(naturally inhabited by purely "ethnic" Macedonians who were either brainwashed or oppressed). It's a nationalistic pissing contest. Names have power in a region that has historically been in flux ever since the decline of the Ottomans. Hell my relatives this summer were talking about how the government was going to sell them to Bulgaria to help pay the debts. Sometimes different people from different regions in the world see things differently than other people from historically secure nations with stable boundaries.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2013 00:20
|
|
|
Emanuel Collective posted:I'd always figured that the Arab invasions dramatically changed the ethnic makeup of Egypt, just as they did every other middle eastern nation. I wasn't aware that modern Egypt largely retained the link to the pre-Arabic population. From what I've read, my impression is that this kind of population replacement only ever actually happened in the Americas and in Oceania. Everywhere else what happened was that the conquered peoples adopted the language, religion, etc. of their conquerors, to the point that they forgot it had ever been otherwise. Collective identity can change in a surprisingly short time and the historical record is not very reliable in a lot of cases, especially as older texts tend to ignore everything about the lives of ordinary people.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2013 00:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 22:59 |
|
|
Kassad posted:From what I've read, my impression is that this kind of population replacement only ever actually happened in the Americas and in Oceania. Everywhere else what happened was that the conquered peoples adopted the language, religion, etc. of their conquerors, to the point that they forgot it had ever been otherwise. Collective identity can change in a surprisingly short time and the historical is not very reliable in a lot of cases, especially as older texts tend to ignore everything about the lives of ordinary people. Sometimes as in the case of the Bulgars and the Varangians they end up being assimilated by the local population that they conquered, eventually taking on their language. These things can go both ways.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2013 00:27
|
|