Hungarians more mongol than balkans according to your graphQuote:
Originally Posted by Stears
Printable View
Hungarians more mongol than balkans according to your graphQuote:
Originally Posted by Stears
Indeed, this is the zone of eastern forest peoples. He should be proud of Oghuric Avars who spread the language that he speaks in the Balkans as well as later Oghuric Khazars who laid the foundation future Varangian (Viking) Kievan Rus by founding the city of Kiev and accustoming early Slavs to state foundation and political organization.Quote:
Originally Posted by itilvolga
You occupy the opposite radical spectrum of Bori. The entire steppe was Turkic since 5 century AD. Slavs eventually overwhelmed Turks with muskets and technology they got from Western Europe. Due to your bias, you constantly refer to Turks as a bunch of nomads failing to acknowledge that Turkic khaganates and smaller polities employed various writing systems, established cities and built fortresses all across the Steppes. Why don't you call Scythians a bunch of pillaging nomads? Early Slavic polities in the East were established by Vikings. The city of Kiev itself was founded by Khazars who built a fortress there. Thus the Greek name Sambatas from Turkic Sambat aka 'high fortress'. State foundation and political organization was brought by Turks to Eastern Europe. Obviously, the culture of Turks was no match for Meditarranean or Chinese ones, but far more advanced than that of Eastern or Northern Europe or that of Scythians who lost the Steppes to Turks and were absorbed by various Turkic groups.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pahli
Because we're not talking about Scythians here, if it was the case I would have said the same because they were degenerate as fuck culturally compared to Persians. I merely called him out and said he was wrong, and he is. Look up history, slavery was still a thing among Turkic people up til the late 19th century, only abolished by the invading Russians, Turkic "advanced" culture didn't last very long because they didn't modernize, by the time they were conquered by others they were still 500 years behind culturally engaging in mass slavery and raiding. So its not a bias I carry here, its facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yaglakar
Genetically we are 0% East Asian or 0% non European, you Russians are 3% East Asian or more, by default we are more European than a Russian, however race itself is a designation made by humans based on religious or culture criteria mostly, I careless what our mentality may look to others to be honest, I think Orthodox religion is most backward religion but you will disagree with it, so the impressions are mutual.Quote:
Originally Posted by EdwardS
Yet another bias. Slavery was rampant all around world except Western Europe. Russian serfdom is a form slavery.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pahli
I'm giving you examples, it's not a bias. Why do I have to mention the whole world's slavery problem? We're talking about Turks here, fact is; If it wasn't for the Russians the slavery in Central Asia could have continued for longer time when it was already abolished in most parts of the world. Russian serfdom was abolished in 1861 by the way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yaglakar
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor..._the_Caucasus;
"When the Russian troops took Khiva in 1898 there were 29,300 Persian slaves, captured by Turkoman raiders. According of Josef Wolff (Report of 1843–1845) the population of the Khanate of Bukhara was 1,200,000, of whom 200,000 were Persian slaves.[95]"
Go educate yourself, and stop being offended by facts.
The message was not for you. It was for Vlatko, Leto and Pahli. You did not get culture from Byzantines. Your ancestors as vassals of Oghuric Avars pillaged Romans. That is how proto-Slavic language spread in the Balkans. Plus you are a Macedonian which is not really Europe. I don't care about DNA.Quote:
Originally Posted by *****
https://i.imgur.com/yzJhGYq.png
Kurt Jonassohn. 1998. Genocide and Gross Human Rights Violations. Routledge
You can't call backwards orthodox/christians when you come from a muslim country and are most likely muslim.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Illyrian Warrior
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachmen...9281673858.jpg
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachmen...7481920691.png
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachmen...7482119187.png
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachmen...7880287359.jpg
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachmen...7482179682.png
Quote:
When the Muslim population remains under 2% in a country, they will be seen primarily as a peace-loving minority and not as a threat to other citizens. This is the current situation in:
United States — Muslim 0.6%
Australia — Muslim 1.5%
Canada — Muslim 1.9%
China — Muslim 1.8%
Italy — Muslim 1.5%
Norway — Muslim 1.8%
As the Muslim population reaches 2% to 5%, they begin to recruit from ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, within prisons and street gangs. This is happening in:
Denmark — Muslim 2%
Germany — Muslim 3.7%
United Kingdom — Muslim 2.7%
Spain — Muslim 4%
Thailand — Muslim 4.6%
“From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population,” Dr. Hammond notes. “For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food” and increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature such food on their shelves — along with threats for failure to comply. This is happening in:
France — Muslim 8%
Philippines — 5%
Sweden — Muslim 5%
Switzerland — Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands — Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad & Tobago — Muslim 5.8%
Soon they begin to apply pressure to allow Sharia law within their own communities (sometimes ghettos).
“When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions,” Dr. Hammond notes. “In Paris, we are already seeing car-burnings. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam, and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam, with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam.” These tensions are seen on a regular basis in:
Guyana — Muslim 10%
Riots in Pakistan, 2013
Riots in Pakistan, 2013
India — Muslim 13.4%
Israel — Muslim 16%
Kenya — Muslim 10%
Russia — Muslim 15%
The violence increases when the Muslim population reaches 20%. “After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues,” such as in:
Ethiopia — Muslim 32.8%
“At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare,” such as in:
Bosnia — Muslim 40%
Chad — Muslim 53.1%
Lebanon — Muslim 59.7%
From 60%, persecution of non-believing “infidels” rises significantly, including sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia law as a weapon, and Jizya, a tax placed on infidels, such as in:
Albania — Muslim 70%
Malaysia — Muslim 60.4%
Qatar — Muslim 77.5%
Sudan — Muslim 70%
After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some State-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out “infidels,” and move toward a 100% Muslim society, which has been experienced to some degree in:
Bangladesh — Muslim 83%
Egypt — Muslim 90%
Gaza — Muslim 98.7%
Indonesia — Muslim 86.1%
Iran — Muslim 98%
Iraq — Muslim 97%
Jordan — Muslim 92%
Morocco — Muslim 98.7%
Pakistan — Muslim 97%
Palestine — Muslim 99%
Syria — Muslim 90%
Tajikistan — Muslim 90%
Turkey — Muslim 99.8%
United Arab Emirates — Muslim 96%
A 100% Muslim society will theoretically usher in their version of peace — the peace of ‘Dar-es-Salaam’ — the Islamic House of Peace. “Here there’s supposed to be peace, because everybody is a Muslim, the Madrassas are the only schools, and the Koran is the only word,” such as in:
Afghanistan — Muslim 100%
Saudi Arabia — Muslim 100%
Somalia — Muslim 100%
Yemen — Muslim 100%
You don't get the point do you? Slavery was rampant everywhere except Europe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pahli
" Consequently, by 1870 the trade in African slaves to Iran through the Indian Ocean had been significantly diminished. Although the diplomatic efforts of the Russians and the British did result in a decline in the trade, slavery was still common in Iran under the Qajar dynasty and it was not until the first half of twentieth century that slavery was officially abolished in Iran under Reza Shah Pahlavi." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Iran
"Slavery in China has taken various forms throughout history. Slavery was reportedly abolished as a legally recognized institution, including in a 1909 law[1][2] fully enacted in 1910,[3] although the practice continued until at least 1949.[4]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_China
All your arguments are normative. Slavery would have been abolished in early 20th century as was the case throughout the world.