Integration has failed

Norsemaiden said:
Yes it was bad that they treated savages in such an uncivilised way. There were good points about the Muslims but it would have been absolutely tragic if the Muslims had succeeded in taking over all of Europe. Why would you say that the Muslim nations are so backward in the present day, stuck in an almost medieval time warp with regard to their culture?
You have forgot to use "" signs when mentioning "savages".
Also, can you help to find for myself a crystal ball you were using to get this information that it would be tragic if muslim had succeded in taking over all of europe? I need to ask a few questions myself... Or you were using some kind of parallel realities gates to cross to universe in which that terrible alternative "Muslim won" world is?
I guess that muslim world is backward today because they are lesser people, not so intelligent by nature, genetically inferior. It must be that. This is reason. On the other hand white europenas were uncivilized for a much longer period of time, and their culture was stagnant for a long time... But it does not matter... They were just preparing for the big game, you know... They knew that they were superior in any way so there was no need to hurry, they knew they will be civilized at the end.
Also those muslims...who fukkin cares if actually they are of so many different enthinicities. Fact that they like different system of belief, in turn can justify generalizing their ethnicity. I mean they are not white, that is enough to put them in their place.
 
Dushan S said:
This is nonsense. A lot of nations have been made in a way that there were waves of different conquerors. Even if that you can use reverse logic in a similar way and come to conclusion that if there are different waves of conquerors, people living there have experienced being constantly conquered by someone, so they should adopt slave-alike mentality.


NM You are intelligent woman but it does not stops you from being rassistic orinted to the point of ignoring everything that you have read and does not gets along with your views, and by assuming that when you read a number of books you can easily come with all kinds of concslussions. You can let your imagination fly high, and I am glad that you are creative and imaginative personality, but, unfortunately, China is not one nation in a monolitic way, actually it is very mixed, and it is just your rassistic ignorance I assume that makes you think that if they are all yellow and look similar to you, they must be one nation.
In reality, Chinese from different parts of continent are often different between themselves as much as people that were making deathcamps and people that were killed in the same deathcamps. Btw current biggest power in the world (and you can argue as long as you like that it's democratic society is crumbling or whatever som of you like to do) is highly multhiethnical in its profile, and it will stay like that. At the end it all depends what is the way we differentiate between people. Someone can choose race. Someone not.


And that in turn, by your own merits you often use is proof that it was inferior, and didn't stand test of survival of the fittest. I can just the same say that Babylonian civilization was great but, unfortunatly it was military defeated, but it could otherwise be left intact.
NSG was not functional in long terms. It was very unstable and there was a need of expansion and agression towards other nations, that was part of the very nature of it. Fact that Germany was completely destroyed, that every other german was killed in 6 years, and that it was splitted in two tells enough about it. Uniformal ethnicity didn't helped much.

Main flow with all racial views is that if you want to call a group of people "nation" you have to take a certain point in time as a "starting point". But if you look back it appears that something considered nation at one time was actually again exposed to mixture with other ethnical groups in the past, and that there is no monolitic ethnicity.

This is funny. Arab world (as Speed has already pointed out) was way more advanced and civilized at that time. There are two reasons that Spain has rose quickly to power at that time: Ther was a military tradition after all those time of fighting, and second, they got knowledge from their highly civilized enemy and gold by conquering arab theoritories that were rich. So fact that spain has rose to power hase more to do with bloodthirsty temper of these people than their racial superiority.

And please, learn history first. Even if you want to disagree with it (as I often do in some other cases) you need to have some basic clues that are not biased with childish racial theories... I mean... Spanish spoiled by foreign blood... My god what a nonsense.
Our whole "european" culture is actually not europena at all in its roots... Most of Greek scientists were not born in Greece but in greek towns in asia minor, or were heavily influenced by Egyptians and Persians. You are using arab numbers and arab mathematics every day. Computer you are connecting on internet are using binary system that has been stolen from old Chinese works. As moronic tribe people were organising their unstable kingdoms and planing crusades so they can pillage burn and destroy, arab world was having a rennesaince.
Fact that you live in a VERY short hystorical period (compared to history line of few thousand years) when white race has got world supremacy does not justifies ignoring fact that thru rest of history other races were more advanced, and that may simply happen again in future.

The Chinese are a race. Their civilisation was begun by Whites - Kurgans.

Mathematics and numbers were invented by the ancient Greeks, who were white. Do you really think they were racially the same then as they are now?

The ancient Egyptians were white and the Persians also were indo-europeans.

http://library.thinkquest.org/C004203/science/science03.htm

SKELETAL ANALYSIS REVEALS RACIAL NATURE OF HELLENIC SOCIETY

One of the most complete studies ever undertaken of racial types in Ancient Hellas was done by the American anthropologist J. L. Angel, who performed an extensive survey of all ancient Greek crania.
Angel (1944), calculated that during the Classical period of Greek history (650-150 BC), 27% of the Greek population had been predominantly Nordic in type.
This is perfectly in line with other observations, which have determined that the Hellenic population consisted of two, possibly three elements initially: Nordics, Mediterraneans and Alpine types. Only later were non-European elements introduced, mainly through the importation of slaves.

The study of Greek literature which Sieglin (1935) performed, has demonstrated that many individuals in the elites of ancient Greece, had blond or red hair. For instance, Alcibiades, Alexander the Great, Critias, Demetrius of Phalerum, King Lysimachus, Ptolemy II, Philadelphus and King Pyrrhus, were all fair-haired individuals. Dionysius I, the ruler of Syracuse, had blond hair and freckles, whilst the Athenian playwright Euripides, also had a fair and freckled complexion. [Gunther (1956).]

HELLENIC IDEAL WAS NORDIC

Indeed, the Greek orator Dio of Prusa noted that the Greek ideal of beauty was a Nordic one. The Greeks, he said, admired the blond Achilles, but thought that the barbarian Trojan Hector, was black-haired. [Günther (1956).]

The ancient Egyptians were white http://white-history.com/earlson/nordicegypt.htm

The persians were indo-europeans = white http://www.historyforkids.org/learn/india/history/aryan2.htm
 
You know what's funny? This is almost starting to intertwine with my Atlantis theory.
 
:lol: :lol: o_O :lol: :lol: o_O :lol: :lol:
Norsemaiden , you are sending AS A PROOF link to site called "White History" that has "Spirit Cave Mummy", Egyptian mummy, queen Elisabeth and poor mr. Adolf, and all that on one page about book of real history of white rase nad its achievement? :loco: One thing is to come up with some theory because of too much free time but other thing is become delusional and take things for granted because there is web site about it or someone has took time to write a book... :rolleyes:
The Chinese are a race. Their civilisation was begun by Whites - Kurgans.
You were talking about chinese as a NATION. If memory fails you, re-read your post, please. You were comparing Germany, England, Chinese, and said that they are homogenous, while in practice two citizens of China can be more different than German and Russian.

Mathematics and numbers were invented by the ancient Greeks, who were white. Do you really think they were racially the same then as they are now?
ouch... I guess all those architectural achievement in Babylone and egyptian pyramids were done without any knowledge of numbers and mathematics... Amazing. No numbers before greeks. A lot to learn :)
The ancient Egyptians were white and the Persians also were indo-europeans.
Actually, Lao Tze was also Indo european, it is just that all this brown rice he was eating has made him yellow. But I suspect that fall of Germany is just a result of alien intervention, there is no other explanation... They got Hitler and replaced him with a robot. That was it. And this thing about atlantis... I also think it is somehow connected, it is just that I have to look for right link on internet to prove it.
:)
Have a nice day!
 
The Chinese Nation is virtually National Socialist. Race is very important to them.

As in many other countries, racial theories have been essential in the construction of group identity in China throughout much of the twentieth century. As Sun Yat sen (1866-1925) - founder of the Guomindang, China's Nationalist Party, and widely accepted as the 'father' of the nation in China and in Taiwan to this day - put it in his famous Three Principles of the People, 'The greatest force is common blood. The Chinese belong to the yellow race because they come from the blood stock of the yellow race. The blood of ancestors is transmitted by heredity down through the race, making blood kinship a powerful force' (Sun 1927: 4-5). Sun Yat sen and other political leaders considered the Han to constitute the absolute majority in China, a distinct people with shared physical attributes and a line of blood which could be traced back to the most ancient period.

The vast majority of the Chinese are Han, and they are racially discriminatory. Race mixing with whites is not a problem for them, but they shun darker skinned people than themselves.

"If a Chinese woman dates a white man it is social climbing. If she is with a black man, it is 'stepping down'. In this situation, the Chinese will express very strong feelings about ethnicity."
http://app1.chinadaily.com.cn/star/2003/0417/cu18-1.html

The word racism evokes images of hate, violence and antagonism, but its definition extends to a belief that some races have an innate superiority to others. Or, as a comment from a student at Chengdu University succinctly demonstrates: "There is no racism in China because there are no black people."
 
Muslims: good for Europe, bad for Israel?!

Then business guy said calmly: "Yes, but it is different, you are not completely surrounded by countries that have only intention to completely destroy and kill you all, and are constantly plotting to have you dead"
Quote from Dushan S in his post arguing for the Israeli right to defend itself agains Muslims.

But, when I say that it would have been tragic had the Muslims converted all Europe by the sword, Dushan S rushes to oppose me, saying:
Also, can you help to find for myself a crystal ball you were using to get this information that it would be tragic if muslim had succeded in taking over all of europe? I need to ask a few questions myself... Or you were using some kind of parallel realities gates to cross to universe in which that terrible alternative "Muslim won" world is?

A pattern emerges when observing several people's posts on the forum. They favour Israel's war in it's supposed defense against the dire threat of Muslims who want to wipe their nation off the map, and they will justify all the savage killing of innocent Lebanese civilians.

Yet, the same people can be relied upon to favour multiculturalism in white nations, to criticise the National Socialism of Germany, whilst hypocritically advocating much the same policy (including the world's largest ever concentration camp filled with Arabs) for Israel. They argue that the Muslims would have been good for Europe should they have effectively wiped the white nations off the map over a thousand years ago.

This is consistent only if explained in terms of loyalty towards Israel.

In the city of Grenada, the last to fall to the White armies, the Spanish were enraged to learn that the Moorish king's prime minister and most of his leading advisors were Jews. A massacre of Jews in the city followed that discovery. This alliance between a number of Spanish Jews and the Moors inflamed the anti-Semitic feeling amongst the subdued Goths even further; a sentiment which would later flare up in the form of the Spanish Inquisition and the expulsion of the Jews from Spain.
http://www.white-history.com/hwr23.htm
 
A couple of answers to other points.

Mathematics: Yes the Egyptians had mathematics, in that they used hieroglyphics and had an arithmetic which was based around addition. I thought we meant the type of maths that we use today, which was begun in ancient Greece. In Egyptian maths, only the slightest of abstraction is evident. There were no "principles", laws, theorems, axioms, postulates or demonstrations. (There may have been more to it than has been discovered however, because evidence was destroyed in the [highly suspicious, but that's another story] fire of the library in Alexandria).

Does anyone think the ancient Egyptians were "Arabs", seriously?!

Well here's another shock for you, Ghengis Khan, the "mongol"? The Chinese themselves say that he was from a grey eyed tribe.

GENGHIS KHAN
The Mongol leader Temujin (AD 1167-1227), better known by his title Genghis Khan (Universal Ruler), was a man of strongly Nordish racial ancestry. According to the Persian historian Ab ul Ghasi, the tribal clan to which Temujin belonged, were known as the Bourchikoun (Grey-Eyed Men). [Günther (1934) 185; Lamb (1928) 22.] The ancestral mother and founder of this clan was known as Alan goa (beautiful Alan). According to the Mongol and Chinese legends on the subject, she was said to have been visited in her tent by a divine being, who possessed golden hair, a fair complexion and grey eyes. Shortly after this visitation, she gave birth to the first member of the Bourchikoun clan. [Günther (1934) 184.]

Temujin himself was noted in Chinese descriptions of him, for his tall stature and heavy beard. [Günther (1934) 185.] We should also note the following depiction of Temujin's appearance, as given by Harold Lamb, in his biography of the great Khan:

"He must have been tall, with high shoulders, his skin a whitish tan. His eyes, set far apart under a sloping forehead, did not slant. And his eyes were green, or blue-grey in the iris, with black pupils. Long reddish-brown hair fell in braids to his back." [Lamb (1928) 23.]

Ab ul Ghasi also observed that the family of Yesugai, the father of Temujin, were known for the fact that their children often had fair complexions, and blue or grey eyes. [Günther (1934) 185.] Temujin's wife, Bourtai, bore a name which means "Grey-Eyed". [Lamb (1928) 23.] As both Günther (1934) and Lamb (1928) note, Temujin's relatives and descendants also possessed fair features: Temujin's son and successor Ogadei (1229-41), had gray eyes and red hair; Temujin's grandson Mangu (1251-9), had reddish eyebrows and a red-brown beard; Subatei, who conquered China, had a long, reddish beard. Indeed, it was said that people were surprised Kubilai Khan had dark hair and eyes, because most of Genghis Khan's descendants had reddish hair and blue eyes. [Günther (1934) 185.]

http://www.white-history.com/earlson/genghis.htm

Watch a documentary on Discovery or the History channel - no historians dispute this.

Duchan S: You mentioned that White Europe (you must mean the far north)remained uncivilised for a long time. This is actually no wonder when you consider how civilisations start. Warriors come in (from the north, with the exception of Arabs) subjugate an "inferior" people and a division of labour occurs with slaves/warrriors/priests/artisans/architects, etc.

No one went north and subjugated the people there! Also there wasn't sufficient population density.

I recommend, to those who have not sworn to be anti-white, spending some
time considering the evidence of the history of the white race in this magnificent work: "The March of the Titans".
http://www.white-history.com/
 
Norsemaiden, this is getting rather ridiculous. As Dushan or someone mentioned before, White people have only been on top for about four hundred years (apart from the Roman Empire, although the Chinese were possibly as advanced and powerful at the same time). And much of Western philosophy owes itself to India; western religion to the East, and a semitic carpenter; mathematics in its form today (although apparently in the Classical world, Archimedes and others essentially discovered calculus, but it was lost) was really spurred on by the arabs.

And why in the world would you wish to claim Genghis Khan? The man slaughtered whole cities.
 
Norsemaiden, we can't argue in the way you want to because you are using only what comes handy. You are changing little things here and there so your theories work, you are using my words in wrong context

- Yes, I understand that Isreali people do not like situation they are in. In their case they would be destroyed and enslaved for REAL. Their civilization achievement would be destroyed

- Yes I don't think that Muslims conquering europe would be something terrible because Muslims were leaving relligious freedom to nations under their rule (We were here 500 years under Ottoman empire rule, but we are still 95% Christians, and white) Also their civilization was more advanced so it would help western world at that moment. As is usually the case after a century or two or even shorter time, Empires made on european soil would crumble, and there would be european kingdoms again. So no big deal. Muslim would give an cultural injection at stalled europe at that time.

So again, it is not that you have prooved something or made a point. You have just shown again that you are single minded and that you desparately want to protect your point of view. Fact that what I say may look unlogical does not means that I am wrong, it means that you don't get it, no offense. Not because of my superiority but because I always do my home work, and keep silent when I am not sure I know what I am doing and talking about. It goes in the same way for few other things you have commented about my post.


It is very obvious that you have your own beliefs, likes and dislikes, and that they come first... You have your racial views and then you read and try to come up with all those stuff that can back up what you already think. What is not in line with your beliefs, you will often dismiss based on "false history" etc. So this is not rational. Not logical. You are not open to solutions and facts that are not proving what you already want to believe. Actually, you are highly relligious by nature, even if you are not aware of this. Every person that puts system of belief before open, rational mind is a relligious. It is sall the same, be it Christianity or White Racism. So how can I argue with someone like you. In any way this is something that affects you not me. Second, I can take any point of view, and I can argue with someone that "We are all equal, race does not matter" is a bullshit, actually I have did that, but it is different... Truth has many sides, and they are sometimes very opposite, at least they appear like that on surface. It is just that your closed and unflexible view is not helping you at all. World is changing, very soon white race will be in minority, number of colored educated people will be on the rise, future centuries will see new great people artists and scientist that will make great acievements for mankind and they will be coloured. Your negbours will be coloured. And neighbours of colored people will be white. It is just the way it goes. By confronting reality you are not helping yourself to live in piece with the world, and it is the same with any person that ties itself for racial and political theories that have been proven as disfunctional by history.

Finally, there is one thing I admire in people, and that is if they are true to themselves. I have a good friend, and when I met her for the first time she mentioned that she hates colored and jews. Ok. I asked why? She had no explanation, and didn't even try to rationalize, she just said that she feels uncomfortable and dislikes them, like she dislikes a movie, kind of food, etc. Later while we were talking she mentioned that while she was living in London for some time, her very good friend and roommate was Korean girl. Now, that confused me... How can she be your friend if you hate yellow people? SHe explained that thing she dislikes colored people does not mean that she can't have a relation with a person as a person, like it or dislike it.
So this is what I dislike: Untruthfulness: All of people that rationalize their hate and fear towards people different to them. Instead of just saying "I dislike them" and be true, because reasons are always of psychological nature, some people have need to justify their hatred. To come up with theories, dig up a lot of data, alternative history, philosophies etc etc. Norsemaiden, you have a problem with other races. You have a problem with christianity. It has a nothing to do with a color of skin that Egyptian Queen has had in 2000 Year BC. You are just rationalizing your racism, and your lack of tolerance and undarstanding. So how can we argue? You need to believe that there is a historical, scientifical ground for your beliefs, because if there is not, it is just You, a person with your own emotional issues and character traits. No matter what anyone says, you will argue and find new proofs that will apparently backup your theories.
It is not about rights or wrongs, and if your data is correct... I can agree with a lot of it. Yes Ghengis Khan was not Mongol, yes library in Alexandria was intentionally burned, but before that probably a lot of books has ended in Vatikan etc. But it is a context, you are freely using a bit of this a bit of that and mixing it in a way that can backup your views. So anyone arguing with you will be just going in endless circle.

I recommend, to those who have not sworn to be anti-white, spending some
time considering the evidence of the history of the white race in this magnificent work: "The March of t
And one more thing. Difference in color is something that people should be aware of, like I am aware of my nationality and heritage. But it does not makes me hate anyone that is different. It does not makes me better than anyone that is of different color or nationality. I am accepting my roots and my heritage as a part of me, and it is down there as a root upon which my individuality is built. But it seems that you are not able to like yourself without disliking others, without conflict. Some people think that being white means that there is an opposition to those that are not white. I don't. Any book that can put a sign of equality between man that is a mass murdered and that has brought death and destruction to his own people, and great achievements of mankind is a work of rassistic imbecile. I am not anti-white, actually I am pro white, and I am for the humanity at the same time, without being against anyone that is different than me. You with your views and people sharing them does not help white people at all, actually thru history, your philosophies have done terrible things to white race.

So in a way, by doing what you do you are betraying and destroying very ideals you are trying to protect... (like some historical people have done, but you are doing it in a very limited proportions) It is just that you are not aware of it, yet - I hope.

Thank you!
You are welcome, but thank me for what?
 
I'm going to save going into all the issues raised until tomorrow. I just feel like I go on too much and you all need a rest! But I only have to say that I really honestly don't hate anyone, I swear it! It is stupid to hate people for being different such as skin colour or race, especially with no rational reason!
I used to enjoy reggae music and be all in favour of race-mixing as some kind of nice way to bring about a world of peace and love. It's like someone who used to enjoy smoking but then realised it was making them ill. Hatred has nothing to do with it - being realistic has.
 
Demilich said:
Being realistic or attempting to jump ship when something isn't as easy as reciting the alphabet?

:loco:

Easy?!!! Surely its a lot easier to stick ones head in the sand of conformity and refuse to look the horrifying and uncomfortable facts straight in the face? The majority prefer that they have a simple, reasurring explanation for how things can improve. That's hardly the route I am on. Struggle is the word.
 
Dushan S
Yes I don't think that Muslims conquering europe would be something terrible because Muslims were leaving relligious freedom to nations under their rule

The Ottomans taxed Christians a quarter of everything per year. As there was no tax on Muslims, this was a financial incentive to convert. They also took a child from every white family, seeming to have a preference for the most aryan looking. Boys were taken away to be trained as fanatical Muslim warriors (Janissaries) and girls were taken for harems. The Janissaries were the "cutting sword edge" of Islam and the main reason for the Ottoman's success. They were elite warriors.

Imagine, if you can, standing within the walls of your fortified city, watching the advance of the besieging army. Suddenly the wall is breached by cannon fire and who swarms through first? Not a swarthy Arabic army, but big, blonde, blue-eyed Muslim mercenaries swinging curved Arabian blades and shouting, "Allah akbar!" And then fathers and brothers and uncles killed, or were killed, by sons and brothers and nephews.

The use of professional mercenaries, combined with the diabolical twist of training the children of their enemies to fight against their own kind, struck more than fear in the hearts of their enemies – it went to the core of their being, to contend against their own flesh and blood.
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?noframes;read=66429


The leader of the Hungarian resistance, George Doza, was killed with a red hot crown put on his head - so his head exploded. You can see a woodcut of it here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/György_Dózsa
When the Serbs rebelled against the Ottoman rule, prisoners were massacred and a huge tower of 952 skulls made from the severed heads. This tower, in Nis, is still there today - set in concrete.
http://www.7is7.com/otto/travel/photos/20031019/serbia_skullsinwall2.html

The Serbian grievances against the Muslims go back 700 years to when they were defeated on the Field of Blackbirds. Serbia would have been able to have a history like England's, if it had not been cut off in its prime. The Serbs want Kosovo back, as it was the heartland of the Serb nation. (Integration is not working very well there either). A century ago Kosovo was 90% Serb, but is now 90%Muslim.

Dushan S
World is changing, very soon white race will be in minority, number of colored educated people will be on the rise

Whites are very much in the minority globally - probably about 5% now whereas in 1922 it was 50%. Whites are shrinking while non-whites population is growing, all out of our charity, aid and taxes.

What happened in Zimbabwe is what will happen in S Africa, what happens in S Africa will happen to the USA and what happens in the USA will happen to Europe - unless there is a change of attitude. And then, those who owe their existence to our benevolence, will perish as we perish. (That is a possible scenario).
 
Norsemaiden said:
Dushan S

The Ottomans taxed Christians a quarter of everything per year. As there was no tax on Muslims, this was a financial incentive to convert. They also took a child from every white family, seeming to have a preference for the most aryan looking. Boys were taken away to be trained as fanatical Muslim warriors (Janissaries) and girls were taken for harems. The Janissaries were the "cutting sword edge" of Islam and the main reason for the Ottoman's success. They were elite warriors.
I think you really have problem with history.
Ottoman empire was multi-ethnical state. It is a fragile situation. They were encouraging people to adopt Muslim faith, because it was making things easier for them- You have to rule country and relligious differences can make a lot of problems. On the other hand, going heavy against other relligions on your theoritorries can also make problems. So they were walking a thin line between bit of pressure to convert to Muslim faith and let people be of faith they want to be. Actually you can find a lot of historical material where it is commented about it. For instance here, a lot of churches was built right at that time. They were not taxing christians more all the time and on all of theoritories. Also, muslim people were paying taxes too... State needs money, everyone were paying taxes. If you check european history a bit you will notice that living was equally hard or even harder at that time in christain world than in muslim world , so it was easier to be ordinary christian farmer in Ottoman Empire than in Europe in a lot of ways. Europe ws chaotic, wars were raging all the time, landlords were figting between themselves even if they are vasals of the same king etc. It was constantly on the edge of chaos.
Turkish dynasty was ruling in Otoman Empire, and not a lot of people in Ottoman Empire where Turks ethnically. Also, Turks were feeling more belonging to their own tribes than to something like "Empire" or to Sultan itself. So professional military that is not dependent on relligious leaders, or ethnicity was needed, millitary force that ruler can count on. Also, Janissaries were birocracy of the empire. At certain age, those more skilled in military disciples were separated of more intellectualy oriented, first were becoming Janissaries as a millitary force (Janissary means "Sultans slave") and second were ruling the emipire. Being Janissary was great, high social position, far different from simple soldier, and at that time having your children become Janissary was an honour and you were assured that your childred will be fed, educated, trained and have a good life. In historical period when families were having like ten childer to ensure that at least few of them will survive, it was good opportunity. Actually in Ottoman empire, people were trying hard to find "connections" so they can have thier child taken to Janissaries. Being Janissary ment that child of christian poor villager can become grand Vessir and rule Ottoman Empire in Sultans name. And it was happening in practice, most of Vessirs were of Slav blood. Also having preferences of Arian children was never documented and has no sense.
It is similar with "Girls taken to harems" comment. If you could be able to ask a girl at that time: Do you want to die from hunger or dissease, live poor life on farm, being raped at least once from christian soldier and once from muslim soldier, be constantly pregnant and watch most of your children die, or live civilized life as one of the wives of rich muslim lord, in nice clothes, wash every day, eat good food when your biggest problem that day is in what color will you paint your nails, what do you think girl would choose?
Janissaries were not "Main reason for ottoman success". They were just a necessity because of the way things are. Having trained army is something that existed long before Ottomans. And btw, they were not fanatical muslim warriors, they were extremely disciplined professional warriors. Quite a difference. Crusaders were extremly undisciplined fanatical christian warriors. Actually muslims were much less fanatical about their faith at that time, "Holy wars" term was made in west by Catholic church that invented holy wars as a way of channeling savagery of christians towards muslims, having convinience of pillaging rich muslim lands. In Kuran, it is forbidden to fight offensive war, so wars of Ottoman empire are in a lot of way just an act of agressive politics of state and not acts of muslim faith as it seems some people think. Idea that "muslim must be stopped" is made by christian church, as way to unify christians agains threat.
Ottoman Empire had agressive politics, while arabs were much more peacefull before Turks came, and that was one of the reasons why crusaders have had so much success initially against them even if it is highly unfavorable position to be far from home in foreign land depending on long see routes for support. A lot of time and effort was needed historically to reclaim their own lands from savage christian invanders.

The Serbian grievances against the Muslims go back 700 years to when they were defeated on the Field of Blackbirds. Serbia would have been able to have a history like England's, if it had not been cut off in its prime. The Serbs want Kosovo back, as it was the heartland of the Serb nation. (Integration is not working very well there either). A century ago Kosovo was 90% Serb, but is now 90%Muslim.
Lol. I can't see anything favorable in English history, no offense to english people here. I mean, they were colonial power for few hundred years and that's it... So what?
Kosovo has nothing to do with muslims. You are mixing things that have nothing in common. Battle of kosovo was a draw actually even naturally it had dire consequences because having same number of people killed and rulers killed has different results for small and big countries. Also, period after battle of kosovo was a period of friendship between Ottoman Empire and Serbia. Serbian leader has gave his sister as a wife for Sultan, they were good personal friends, they fought alongside in battle of Ankara (funny on one side were Janissaries and Serbs as Sultans force and a most of Turks were on enemy side). There was actually another great battle of Kosovo where Serbian and Ottoman army triumphed against Austrian-albanian forces. Even when Serbia has centuries later lost its independence, Christian church had benefits and everything was functioning normally. It was in interest of Ottoman empire to keep people in order, and relligion was a great way for that, peacefull christian or Jew that obeys and pays its taxes was always better than rebellious uncontent muslim that does not pay taxes.
Todays crisis in Kosovo is connected with ethnical (not relligious) problems. A lot of Albanians has left Albania in second half of 20. century because of a chance to have a good life in Yugoslavia because of terrible living in Albania, and they were let have their new home in Kosovo. The rest is just a matter of politics... When Yugoslavia fall apart, separatists in Kosovo started terror against non albanians, goverment made counter mesures, and problem escalated. I don't think that France would let Algerians claim part of france as independent theritory but Serbia was in bad political position because at that time it was under dictature of person western world (at least formally) was against, so they were protecting "poor albanians" (I don't think that NATO will bomb France because they do not letting Algerians have their state in europe or something like that) But this is another story anyway and has nothing to do with relligion. When someone here thinks "muslim" he won't associate albanian from Kosovo with that but will have a picture of Muslim in middle east or muslim in Bosnia. And yes, some of the Albanians in Kosovo are actually christians.


Whites are very much in the minority globally - probably about 5% now whereas in 1922 it was 50%. Whites are shrinking while non-whites population is growing, all out of our charity, aid and taxes.

What happened in Zimbabwe is what will happen in S Africa, what happens in S Africa will happen to the USA and what happens in the USA will happen to Europe - unless there is a change of attitude. And then, those who owe their existence to our benevolence, will perish as we perish. (That is a possible scenario).
Not much sense... Nothing has happened in Zimbabwe by itself... Zimbabwe is actually ok compared to some other african countries that are victims of hunger for profit of western countries. South africa seems ok to me, my friend was living there until recently (white) and it was ok for him too. So I am failnig to see any conections even if you obviously think that there is some.
 
http://www.issues-views.com/index.php/sect/23000/article/23101

Quote:
The ruin of the "breadbasket"
An unpopular truth
[Reprinted from Issues & Views May 2, 2005]

Every time you think that President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe has made as much of a mess of his country as possible, he does himself one better. When a tyrant brings destruction to the world around him, it's usually done with some beneficial goal or purpose in mind. What could possibly be Mugabe's goal in wrecking his country's once prosperous and stable economy?

Why would Mugabe, almost two decades after he took power in 1980, have targeted for displacement the very class of people most responsible for Zimbabwe's prosperity, i.e., the experienced, competent white farmers? Even if redistribution of some of Zimbabwe's land was the goal, how could an entire government administration not see that there were more viable ways to achieve this than mass evictions and persecution of the country's most productive class?

In 2002, economist Walter Williams wrote that "Mugabe has created a disaster for both black and white Zimbabweans in the name of reparations and land redistribution." Members of Mugabe's ZANU-PF party torched at least 10 million acres of cropland, in order to prevent farming on the part of whites. This government-sanctioned action sent signals to thugs to rampage farmland and chase away or kill landowners.

Columnist Nat Hentoff writes that Mugabe, the self-styled "liberator" of Zimbabwe, has actually become its "ghoul." Williams, Hentoff, and others have rebuked those black leaders, here in the U.S. and abroad, who continue to give Mugabe a pass. Few will publicly decry the documented evidence of arbitrary arrests, torture, and political killings -- all initiated by Mugabe's government.

The loss of thousands of resourceful farmers led to the inevitable. Due to food shortages, there is now near-starvation in rural regions, with thousands of Zimbabweans fleeing the country as refugees. The land once known as the "breadbasket of Africa" now faces famine. And, as is also inevitable, corrupt bureaucrats and politicians are using the distribution of food as a weapon against their opponents or as a gift to their supporters. Mugabe himself has stopped all international donations of food, in order to be in a position to punish his enemies by denying access to food supplies.

Now comes news that hungry people are invading Zimbabwe's wildlife reserves, where elephants, lions, leopards and cheetahs roam. In times of natural disaster, where men have no choice but to kill for survival, there is no question of what must be done. But in wake of this totally unnecessary tragedy, a second tragedy would be the swift elimination of massive numbers of animals unique to the continent. The food crisis also has opened the reserves to once-banned hunters, who merely wish to kill the big animals, not for food, but for trophies.

The Independent (4/28/05) reports that Mugabe has ordered Zimbabwe's national parks to work with rural district councils to "begin the wholesale slaughter of big game."


The wildlife directive is a major blow to efforts by conservationists to rehabilitate a wildlife sector devastated by Mr. Mugabe's confiscation policy. The chaotic farm invasions saw party militants storming into conservation areas -- private and state-owned -- to slaughter animals.

Elephants and giraffes are being killed for food, which in many cases is not reaching the starving poor, but is appropriated by government officials, often the military and police.

Meanwhile, many displaced white farmers have moved to neighboring Zambia, where they are once again putting their skills to work in the farming of tobacco and maize. In "Zim farmers help Zambia," News24.com (UK) reports:


In the southern town of Choma, some 25 Zimbabwean farmers are leasing farmland to grow tobacco and maize for export and creating jobs for many poor Zambians and an "outbreak of money," officials say.

"Tobacco production has increased in the last three years because of the white Zimbabwean farmers who have introduced highly mechanized farming in Zambia," says Finance Minister Ngandu Magande.

The group is part of Zimbabwe's 4,500 white commercial farmers who had been targeted by Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe's government since 2000 and whose prime land had been taken away and given to landless blacks. . . .

The Choma agriculturists are farming on long-term leases from individual Zambians who were unable to develop the land because of a lack of capital and equipment and are being financed through $25m in loans from US tobacco company Universal.

"Each farm employs about 120 local people," says Tim Carter, 47, a Zimbabwean who owns Nkanga Farms, a tract of land of around 1,200 acres west of Choma. . . .

Mugabe's policy sparked an exodus with farmers leaving for Zambia, Mozambique and a handful even going as far away as Nigeria to rebuild their lives. Most farmers crossed into Zambia without equipment because the Zimbabwean government imposed a ban on the movement of farm machinery.


And back in Zimbabwe, the government is planning for major grain imports. It seems that the country has run out of maize, the staple diet of Zimbabwe's 12 million people. As shortages of other basic commodities increase, Mugabe talks like a man living in a personal fantasyland. In an apparent attempt to stave off public upheaval, he downplays, with lies, the seriousness of the country's problems, a pattern that some of his opponents call "treacherous." Wellington Chibebe, of Zimbabwe's Congress of Trade Unions, calls Mugabe's chicanery "a war against the people's minds, playing football with people's brains."

Back in 2002, Ghana's Osei Prempeh implored Mugabe to "put your house in order." And an official of Botswana blamed Mugabe's misrule for the refugees that are now becoming economic burdens on Botswana. Mugabe appears oblivious to criticism, and has an excuse for all Zimbabwe's woes -- usually having to do with conspiring whites.

An economy once envied and considered a model in Africa has been ruined and sent into a tailspin by fools and incompetents. Present life in Zimbabwe is grim and the future looks even grimmer.
 
Well, here's my take on it...

The Ottoman Empire and its instability caused war, poverty, horror and finally collapse. It was not a productive form of government.

The Slavic nations, which Dushan tells us are famed for their multi-ethnicity have achieved -- what? -- for the past thousand years. It seems to me their last energy ended when the Mongols invaded and raped all their women. Slav = slave and that's why they hate Western Europeans, much as Dushan here hates England. He's a bigot full of hate.

My point, with the integration topic here and the Swedish rapefest topic, is that two cultures cannot mix. I'm not here to insult either culture, but to point out this historical fact. And so far, no one has posted any contrary evidence.

I find that telling.

Norsemaiden makes a good point above about the decline of the Ottoman Empire, and when you look at what happened in WWI, you can see why the entire concept of a political entity -- the Ottoman Empire -- enclosing different ethnic and religious groups was doomed from the start. Multiculturalism is death.
 
Dushan S
Also, muslim people were paying taxes too... State needs money, everyone were paying taxes.

Because you don't give any referrence about Muslims paying taxes, I spent a while trying to find information to back up YOUR position, as I don't wish to be mistaken. But this is as near as I got.

In any case, the Ottoman state developed best those of its functions which most helped plunder the population. The heaviest tax collected by the state from the non-Muslim people was the poll-tax (ciziye). Every non-Muslim from the age of 15 to 75 had to pay only for figuring in the lists of the Sultan's subjects (such lists were made once in 30 years). According to a 1736 decree, the wealthier Christians paid 10 grosh each, the middling ones - 5 grosh and the poorer ones - 2.5 grosh (one grosh at that time bought 13 loaves of bread of 750 g each).

The local lord was paid by the non-Muslim households a land tax (ispenc ) which was greater than the tax owed by a Muslim household on the same size of land. Another regular obligation of the raya (subjects) towards the feudal lord was the tithe on the produce of the land (usur) - between 1/10 and 1/8 of the yield.

These were the main taxes which were systematically infringed, i.e. they were arbitrarily increased by their collectors, to say nothing of various other levies, fees, fenes and corvee, extraordinary taxes during military campaigns which subsequently became permanent and which burdened the non-Muslim population. In addition to this economic pressure, there were regular campaigns of Islamizing the Bulgarian people by force, especially in the Rhodopes and in Northern Bulgaria. A particularly cruel form of oppression was the blood tax (devsirme), levied periodically from the 15th to the 18th century. The Bulgarian families were forced to give up their best male children who were then Turkified and educated in exceptional Muslim fanaticism. They made up the janissary corps and became the mainstay of the Ottoman authorities. Other forms of assimilation included abductions of Christian women who were forced to become wives and mothers of Muslims, the forcible re-settlement of Bulgarians in Anatolia, physical extermination, etc.
http://www.digsys.bg/books/history/under-ottoman.html

It is certainly the case that the Janissaries recieved increasing privileges for themselves and positions of authority. This is to be expected considering their genetic superiority.

According to answers.com the battle of Kosovo was won by the Muslims
,
who succeeded in surrounding the Serbs and inflicting a crushing defeat on the army.

http://www.answers.com/topic/battle-of-kosovo

Lazar was taken prisoner and executed; the Serbs were forced to pay tribute to the Turks and promised to do military service in the Sultan's army.
Which explains why Turks fought along side the Ottomans in the battle of Ankara that Dushan S mentions.
The new sultan, Bayezid I, reconciled with the Serbians by taking the Serbian princess Olivera Despina, daughter of Prince Lazar, as his wife. Thereafter, Serbs were obligated to serve in the Ottoman army and pay taxes to the Turks.

It seems more logical to me that the Christians were not best buddies with the Ottomans, so I find this version of history considerably more convincing.
 
We need to ask ourselves what Black America has failed to do? Have they failed to integrate into our personal ideas of Americana, adapting their culture to our needs? Whether Black America has failed to integrate or White America has failed to absorb are irrelevant questions. What we must ask ourselves is what about Black America do we find non-American or unintegrated? You guys are trying to find a solution to a problem that you think exists.

Race is a contrived concept. We create the idea of race and pass it down through the generations. Observe the inability of young children to see the world in terms of racial divisions and differences. We teach them to do that. There is nothing enlightening about assigning characteristics to race and then always being pleasently surprised when we find exceptions... the friendly Black man, the brilliant Mexican, etc. I'm offended to the point of pity by Speed's August 2nd post. There are no natural values in Whiteness and there are no natural values in Blackness. Race carries with it no natural virtues.

What this forum has done well to expose is the great tension between White America and Black America. Two Americas layered upon each other resisting and absorbing each other. This is a good dialog to have, but I see a great mistake being made here. We are assuming our personal values are more American, that White America is more truely American and that cannot be true. Race carries no virtues, to be American does, and those virtues exist because of both White AND Black America.

Somebody once suggested that the best judgement of people was the content of their character; race has nothing to do with that.