Fuck you

>And Hebrew is descendant from Aramaic

The Hebrew alphabet is descended from the Aramaic alphabet, that's a long way from saying that Hebrew is descended from Aramaic.

Otherwise, German is descended from Latin.

>Culture and ethnicity is a hell of a lot more complicated than just language
There are surely gray areas, namely diaspora, but I really think there's much in the way of people romanticizing their identity rather than looking at their position objectivity.

And in this regard, language is king. It's the foundation for all ethnic classification. It's what makes Slavs Slavs, despite all their bickering.

I think he means the actual Hebrew language

I do because it is

But the thing is why do people act like William the Bastard was of 100% Nordic extraction? If you look at his lineage he was mostly French.

And again, what makes your classification Objectively Right and all others Objectively Wrong despite your opinion?

If you read Plutarch, you see enormous tension and a very clear sense of different-ness between Alexander's Macedonian followers and his Greek followers. They both spoke Greek. They would go on to conquer a good chunk of the known world, and in many places, institute Greek as the language that would be spoken in their domains. So in the 3rd century B.C., all those people in Anatolia, Egypt, the Levant, Mesopotamia, etc? They're all "Greek"? Why then, do you see actual revolts against said Greek overlordship, a desire to be different and ruled by themselves and not some "other" group?
Then he's wrong.

They'd be wrong. At that point in time they had fully assimilated into the French ethnicity.

Because while they were ethnically Hellenic, you can have an identity beyond your ethnicity.

Funny you mention this, I received a private tour of the British Museum by an expert and we talked a lot about this particular phenomenon.

It boils down to simple politics, not that they were ethnically separate.

But even if he spoke Norse or whatever he was still mostly French since Norman lords tended to marry local woman instead of importing them all the way from Denmark. It's like with the Hungarian Arpad dynasty that started out as Asiatic, but after 300 years of marrying European noblewomen they became racially fully European.

No, contemporary Hebrew script comes from Aramaic. Paleo-Hebrew script, as well as the language it expresses, does not, although after the Persian occupation Hebrew picked up a lot of Aramaic loanwords.

Did he speak Norse first, or French?

It's entirely likely he was simply a bit of a dying Norse ethnicity in Normandy and his sons and daughters would've been wholly French.

He spoke French. I'm not sure he ever spoke Norse.

>Because while they were ethnically Hellenic, you can have an identity beyond your ethnicity.

There can't be an "ethnic Hellenic". Hellenism isn't a language. GREEK is a language, which vastly pre-dates Hellenism. If language=ethnicity, hellenic doesn't exist as an ethnicity.

>Funny you mention this, I received a private tour of the British Museum by an expert and we talked a lot about this particular phenomenon.

Funny you should mention this. I spoke to a Smithsonian expert and he said you were a retard and a faggot. Bringing in an anonymous "expert" to bolster your opinion "Because lel he agreed with me" is retarded.

>It boils down to simple politics, not that they were ethnically separate.

Because you know their motivations better than they do, or Plutarch does. We're done here.

>you cannot claim to be ethnically anything if you do not know the language

man, the welsh are going to be pissed

I am well aware that the man I talked to by no means completely validates whatever I say, but I think it elaborates on my initial point, that being that Macedonians and "proper" Greeks were both Greek. Hellenic is synonymous with Greek, both as a name for the Greek language itself, and as a family group under the Indo-European languages. This isn't "Hellenism" as a phenomenon in whatever way you're thinking of it as, this is Hellenic as a literal ethnolinguistic group.

You never actually assessed my point, that being that the separation between the two was a political one, not an ethnic one.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_language
>Greek or Hellenic[10][11] (Modern Greek: ελληνιkά [eliniˈka], elliniká, "Greek", ελληνιkή γλώσσα [eliniˈci ˈɣlosa], ellinikí glóssa, "Greek language") is an independent branch of the Indo-European family of languages, native to Greece, western and northeastern Asia Minor, southern Italy, Albania and Cyprus.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellenic_languages

Thankfully and beautifully, the Welsh are reviving their language and may save their ethnicity.

For a long time now they have been extremely Anglicised, and all but indistinguishable from the English.

>You never actually assessed my point, that being that the separation between the two was a political one, not an ethnic one.

Which again, IS NOT WHAT THE SOURCES WE HAVE SAY. That there was a very different sense of identity, not just of interests, between "The Macedonians" and "The Greeks".

So either

A) Plutarch has no idea what he's talking about but you do.

B) You have to create a notion of "ethnic/language identity" alongside some other completely different notion of identity construction that's rooted in place of birth and customs and bloodline, and come up with an entire system as to how the two interact, so that you can have what is ultimately a useless term for any predictive measure, because it's redundant with "and they speak this as their primary language", so that you can reconcile both your statements with Plutarch's history of the situation.

A is very likely wrong. B is completely useless. I'll stick with more traditional notions of ethnicity, thank you very much.

Let's reign this in.

Plutarch says they're ethnically different because the two don't get along?

What does he actually make the two out to be?

Canadians and Americans being political separate does not make them a separate ethnicity, they're both extraordinarily Anglo.

>Language is the primary determiner of ethnicity.

It isn't, self identification is. We can meme all we want abou blood and soil, genetics, culture and language, but it really is only about self-identification, unfortunately.

See: the Croats and the Serbs

>Language dictates Ethnicity
Sure. Robert Mugabe is as English as the English queen.

>Plutarch says they're ethnically different because the two don't get along?

No, he says the reverse, that they didn't get along because they were "ethnically" different, and would constantly divide into camps of "us" vs "them".

Self-identification is feels.

Language is reals.

You don't just decide your origin and actual identity, you can only bullshit yourself into believing one way because it makes you feel better.

The notion that language makes THE distinction and not other factors is feels, however.

But the thing is, ethnicity is pretty much 100% feels.

You could say that language or biological race are tangible things and I'd agree, but most people base their identity on feels rather than tangible things. Even nazis noticed that linguistic and racial groups are completely separate shit.

So basically you're a German if you identify as a German and if a majority of people who identify as Germans view you as a German.

He apparently went under some level of Anglicisation, but I'm also curious if he was raised speaking any native languages.

The better question is if I man who can't speak and hasn't lived as a Bantu or whatever, can still rightfully say he is?

And where was that ethnic separation?
I think it's just easier for two folks to lead themselves to believe that there ethnically separate when they're in political opposition to one another. Otherwise, they're ethnically separate just because they decide.

Ethnicity can be in peoples minds determined by feels, but how people perceive ethnicity is not ashtrays the truth, even if that's how people play the game, it's still faulty rules.

Nazis were pretty dumb, they called Ukrainians Germanic (bullshit about ancient Gothic ancestry) when it suited them politically, despite the fact that they are objectively Slavic.

They were putting emotion before truth.

>ashtrays
*always

But is ethnicity an objective, tangible thing to begin with? I don't think it is, it's 100% social and to a large degree even political construct.

Race = reals
Ethnicity = feels

In their notion for how a people should organize itself, whether a mostly rural and land based aristocracy vs a collection of polises and the area they dominate. In the genetic stock of the two peoples. In the cultural history, where Greece proper was the place which gave birth to modern civic life as they knew it, math, philsophy, music and the arts, while those northern barbarians were still fucking their goats. In the way their economies were set up, as wealth in traditional Macedonian society was measured in the number of animals you owned, rather than coins, gems, or ships. In a long Greek literary tradition not including Macedonia as part of the civilized Greek world (For instance, there is no Macedonian contingent on either side of the Trojan War in Homer, despite pretty much everywhere else in the Greek world picking one side or the other).

In pretty much everything besides the language.

I think race is the most subjective to social construction (not that there isn't obvious differences between Asians and Blacks, say), you can see this in areas like southern Europe and parts of the near east.

Ethnicity can be mapped throughout time, as it evolves and expand into further groups, leading it to be highly tangible.

Im still pretty pissed off that Sarah McDaniels modeled for playboy as its first non-nude model.

That is all.

What was described is a very current society, not an ethnicity. This reinforces my statement that the differences between them was political and societal, not ethnically. Ethnicity is a very base thing, it doesn't contain the fluff that was described there. Various levels of civilization do not separate people into ethnicities.

Holy fuck what an absolute semen demon
>heterochromia
>DSLs
>liberal cleavage

CBHs too.

She is literally built for sex.

>you will never, ever cum deep inside her whilst looking into her beautiful eyes
And people ask me why I'm depressed

>Those lips will never wrap around your dick with those mismatched eyes looking pleadingly upon yours.

Born in 1995

I feel old

If it makes you feel any better, we're all living our lives slowly edging closer towards death with nothing meaningful we'll leave behind, nor any experience particularly notable, i.e. cumming inside Sarah McDaniel.

hnnng

Shame about the eyes.

>Shame about the eyes.

Her eyes are the cherry on top.

Culture is the primary determiner of ethnicity.*

FTFY.

Too freakish. I know it's not unnatural but I prefer beauty that looks natural.

Does he have blue eyes? What's that about?

You don't hold the monopoly on colored eyes white boi

Kek.

Let me fix that post for you.

No Aboriginals have not been "anglicised" as you say it. To this day they kick tooth and nail to do anything for white people - you may think I am being racist, but it's literal fact.

Aboriginals stay in their communities mostly, and they are actually being 'repatriated' back to these shit holes. Pic related is probably the best, or at least the highest standard of aboriginal community, that land they have is worth literal millions, I think that community is something like 40 million. But that community is near where I live so there are ALOT of aboriginals that live in this town, which isn't exactly small, and is getting massive (billions of dollars of infrastructure being poured into here via Chinese over next years)

There are 2 types of Aboriginals here. Criminals and parkies. If there is an aboriginals who is working, chances are he is also a criminal attempting to replicate an American Gangster rolling in a crew and selling crack, or he's a parky, they are people who sit in parks all day getting drunk and high. I mean I've lived in this place my whole life and the only time an Aboriginal has said anything to me he has been drunk as fuck and trying to fight/intimidate me, or they are asking for 2 dollars so they can buy some cigarettes. I've grown up with a shit tonne of Aboriginals all who fell into one of those two roles, mainly criminals. This is not saying anything about the quality of the person, some of them are very cool people, very fun to hang around with - they are different in their mind though, which I will explain now.

con't in next post.

It's pretty rare to find people from Zimbabwe with blue eyes.

Everything I have said now is true, you may not want to believe it, but it is. The worst part is yet to come and why I fervently "dislike" Aboriginals. They get literally everything. THey get paid as a child to go to primary school, they get paid to go to highschool/uni, they still barely do. They get fee cars, they get higher pay, they get free houses, yet they abuse them all. If you go to a community and see the tradies working they work in literally the worst conditions. I have heard many accounts of painters who go there to put fresh coats on their houses, the walls are covered in spit until the paint peels. They take care of nothing, even though they get everything fro free, because whitey will be along in short order and fix it for them, free of charge.

They get free cars worth upwards of 50k and they just drive them until they run out of fuel, they can't spend money on fuel because that would dig into their money for cigarettes and Alcohol so they leave their cars there until they get destroyed by the weather.

THe communities are usually full of dogs because they get paid for every dog they take care of, so they just take in all these dogs and cash a check, but do not actually take care of them.

One of my friends who worked up as an electrician in one of the communities brought back a puppy because it say it's litter dying under a car.

I really like to think of myself as an accepting person, take everything I said with a grain of salt, there is an obvious angst in these post. What I have said is all true though.

Forgot to put pic in last post too.

Is that a copy-pasta? That had nothing to do with my post.

Well, you said Aboriginals have been anglicised. Are you even fucking Australian, have you met an actual Aboriginal? It's probably the most wrong statement anyone could ever make, those posts tell you why,m of course you would be like wut, you're arguing from fucking ignorance.

You actually said they speak their language, even though every single one of them is going extinct.

None of them practice their culture past the leaders of communities, why the fuck would you post about something you have no fucking clue about, and then be mad when you get BTFO?

>and even created empires
One would argue otherwise, since basically kings lost power as soon as they distanced from their lands. You could count the kings capable of keeping hold of any region past the one they personally inhabited on one finger: Canute.

Her dick sucking lips though..

I was talking about culture and ethnicity and I read a whole bunch about crime.

I'm also not mad.

...

Please elaborate

I don't see how you're saying they're not ethnically becoming more Anglo. I can tell they suck ass.

>I don't see how you're saying they're not ethnically becoming more Anglo.

Feel free to read my posts. If you think what they are doing is 'becoming anglo' you're literally retarded.

Being segregated on an institutionalized level is not 'anglicising them' it's further ostracising them, essentially so they can have their own culture, which they still disregard.

You know literally nothing about what you attempted to argue. You can stop posting at anytime.

What you're taking about is a different society, not a different culture. There's a difference, one which you seem to not understand.

You're also being a rude cunt when all I do is question your briefs, you're not under attack even if you reply like a wounded animal.

>Language is the primary determiner of ethnicity

I am a Jamaican American of mostly black ancestry with some Hakka Chinese and Irish as well, who speaks American English. Shouldn't my ethnicity be based on where my parents were from rather than what language I speak? It's not like I have a Jamaican accent or anything, except when I attempt to speak Patois. Attempt is the key word here.

It's pretty common for a lot of old black people to gain lighter eyes when they get old.

>what I have said is all true

Source: your arse

I boarded with aborigines and most of them were there to see through graduation and get great/decent marks and most of them are at university.

>everything is free

It's fucking not

You're full of shit.

t. Man who helped aboriginal communities.

Don't underestimate feels. People throw away their lives for these feels. Feels feel more real than reals.

Are we still giving out prizes for most retarded post of the day?

>but for most of them they either also retain (or even only speak) their native languages

You're a fucking retard.

it's a powerful force it doesn't mean it isn't a flawed idea

good argument

Against some moron positing that language constitutes a people rather than genetics.

you're right friend

go around and call yourself a German or irishman or whatever while not being able to speak their language, worship in their churches, eat their food, or you know, even able to talk with these people you claim to be your own.

this is american muh-heritage at it's worst, it's disgusting

>genetics
if you don't understand how mixed the world is already you are going to be in for a shocker.

Languages can be learned, genius. I'm not defending Yanks, but how full force retarded does one [you] have to be to think something as simple as language is a barrier or defining quality?

Beside the point.

The Jewish nation is a spook. By using the same argumentation you could refer to all Catholics on the planet as one nation, which doesn't make any sense.

In what way are a Ukrainian Jew and an Ethiopian one related enough to form a nation by the old ethnocentrist view?

im much more referring to ethnically-derived languages

obviously someone that was born and raised speaking say, Gaelic, but learns English later on is a Gael, because that is the language of their people and anything after that is simply just a language learned.

but once you are born and raised speaking another language you are being effectively absorbed into the other people, and barely distinct other that just a bit of an oddity. It's why we know that Picts don't exist anymore. they didn't all get killed, they just stopped being an identity and the people left are simply Scots. if they had their language they'd be a recognized ethnicity.

Bosnians are Slavs no matter how hated they are by other south Slavs. Just because they adopted some Turkish culture doesn't mean that they are not a Slavic peoples, because we can tell by ethnolinguistics that they have come from the Slavic peoples.

you said genetics are what defines people, but if you're a European you probably have a mixture of paleolithic, indo-european, and anatolian farmer genetics but only one of those is a widespread ethnic classification outside of Basque

>Tl;dr version:
>If a a cat can bark, it's actually a dog, no matter what logic dictates
This argument is even worse that, "someone is x ethnicity because they were born there."

>you said genetics are what defines people, but if you're a European you probably have a mixture
Indeed. Which is why we have further subgroups for ethnicity.

Also,
>It's why we know that Picts don't exist anymore. they didn't all get killed
Actually, it's probably because the Ulster Scots bred them out. In theory, pure Picts can still exist, regardless of language, or if we call them that or not.

>>If a a cat can bark, it's actually a dog, no matter what logic dictates
>This argument is even worse that, "someone is x ethnicity because they were born there."
if all a cat can do is bark, fetch, and go with you hunting, and can't do any cat things at all, why would you treat it like a cat and not a dog? it's a dumb analogy i know, but but you're making out ethnicity to have some sort of unmoveable core that doesnt exist. it only takes a certainlevel of assimilation for an ethnicty to disappear.

>>you said genetics are what defines people, but if you're a European you probably have a mixture
>Indeed. Which is why we have further subgroups for ethnicity.
but those further subgroups for ethnicity are under broader ethnic families. Germans, say, are an Indo-European group regardless of how many of them might have Anatolian farmer or paleolithic native genetics.

as they grow in experience and intelligence, they turn whiter. Sadly, they will never stop being negroes until their flesh rots away and all that is left is a white skeleton

i think you mean just regular Scots, not Ulster Scots, but no, Picts dont exist anymore because there's nothing Pictish left in the peoples there. They've all been Gaelicised or Anglicised into nothingness.

>why would you treat it like a cat and not a dog?
Because it isn't a dog? Just acting like one. The wrong diet and medicines will still kill it.
If a baby is born in Cardiff, to purebred Welsh (Celtic) parents, and for a laugh they make sure he learns Mandarin as first language, does that make the child Chinese, like so many other Han Chinese?
>but those further subgroups for ethnicity are under broader ethnic families. Germans, say, are an Indo-European group regardless of how many of them might have Anatolian farmer or paleolithic native genetics.
Yes, and?

>i think you mean just regular Scots
Right you are. Ulster Scots were later. But it was the Irish who outbred the Caledonian groups.
>Picts dont exist anymore because there's nothing Pictish left in the peoples there.
Except for the most important part: blood. So again, in theory there could still be pure Picts up there, just speaking a different language.

>>why would you treat it like a cat and not a dog?
>Because it isn't a dog? Just acting like one. The wrong diet and medicines will still kill it.
>If a baby is born in Cardiff, to purebred Welsh (Celtic) parents, and for a laugh they make sure he learns Mandarin as first language, does that make the child Chinese, like so many other Han Chinese?
it would make him a fucking joke, but also it would to a sense make him less Welsh.
>>but those further subgroups for ethnicity are under broader ethnic families. Germans, say, are an Indo-European group regardless of how many of them might have Anatolian farmer or paleolithic native genetics.
>Yes, and?
by your logic they can now no longer be Germans.

>>Picts dont exist anymore because there's nothing Pictish left in the peoples there.
>Except for the most important part: blood. So again, in theory there could still be pure Picts up there, just speaking a different language.
there is nothing in your blood that makes you Pictish, your lifestyle does.
there may be certain haplogroups loosely associated with broader ethnic terms like Celtic or Germanic, but these dont hold true to what we actually see as these ethnicties. The french are a know latin peoples regardless of how much "Celtic" y-dna they have.

>but also it would to a sense make him less Welsh.
No, it would just make him a joke. His genetics haven't changed, he's not even a half-breed, and he can speak however he wants to in Cymru.
>by your logic they can now no longer be Germans.
How do you figure? They might share ancestry further back with others, but it's the differences which matter.
>there is nothing in your blood that makes you Pictish
Except having blood unique to the Pictish people. Obviously. Unless you think in the above example, the child could just watch anime eat enough rice to make his eyes slanty.
>The french are a know latin peoples regardless of how much "Celtic" y-dna they have.
And thus, they are now a Frankish people.

>>but also it would to a sense make him less Welsh.
>No, it would just make him a joke. His genetics haven't changed, he's not even a half-breed, and he can speak however he wants to in Cymru.
there is nothing in his genetics that makes him Welsh. Only in his actions can he be Welsh, the less Welsh he acts the less Welsh he becomes.
>>by your logic they can now no longer be Germans.
>How do you figure? They might share ancestry further back with others, but it's the differences which matter.
i don't understand what you mean. you claim their "blood" makes them german, but im saying that not all their blood is the same.
>>there is nothing in your blood that makes you Pictish
>Except having blood unique to the Pictish people. Obviously.
There is no blood unique to the Pictish people. Please tell me how there is.
>Unless you think in the above example, the child could just watch anime eat enough rice to make his eyes slanty.
slanty eyes is a asian trait for their race, it's not an ethnic feature.
>>The french are a know latin peoples regardless of how much "Celtic" y-dna they have.
>And thus, they are now a Frankish people.
no, franks are Germanic. Franks spoke the Frankish language and in the beginning worshipped the Germanic pantheon. the "gaulish" genes were never much displaced, and they have now adopted latin culture and are thus a latin peoples.

>there is nothing in his genetics that makes him Welsh.
But that's wrong? Again, he's not Han Chinese, just because he speaks the language.
>i don't understand what you mean. you claim their "blood" makes them german, but im saying that not all their blood is the same.
Yea, and your claim is dodgy. They're not clones, but we can use anthropological markers to identify them due to differences developed in people.
>There is no blood unique to the Pictish people. Please tell me how there is.
See above. They'd be similar to other Celts and specifically Caledonians, but still unique due to breeding within their people.
>slanty eyes is a asian trait for their race, it's not an ethnic feature.
Then you don't know what an ethnicity is.
>no, franks are Germanic. Franks spoke the Frankish language and in the beginning worshipped the Germanic pantheon. the "gaulish" genes were never much displaced, and they have now adopted latin culture and are thus a latin peoples.
Yea, still not how that works. Are you a kaffir or something, trying to be white?

ethnicity has been a meaningless statistic since 1919

/thread