Why weren't Africans, Europeans, or Australians invited?

>Africans,
Egypt (The only independently developed civilization in Africa, or at least the only inarguable one)
>Europeans,
Greece/Italy (The Originators of most of European and Western society)
>Australians?
It's for civilizations, not tribal societies.

Why isn't Finland invited?

Ancient civilizations not antediluvian civilizations.

Why isnt Korea invited?

What's ridiculous is them thinking that those ten modern day countries have anything more common with those ancient civilisations compared to other countries, other than being on the same land, and maybe those ten populations having a few ancestors that were part of those ancient civilisations.

The United Kingdom is older than all of those countries.
inb4
>The People's Republic of China is over a gorralion years old!

Get flooded with poo in loos, anglo scum

>The United Kingdom is older than all of those countries.

you are so incredibly stupid Nigel hahahaha

>Tiwanaku nigs are invited
>No Ecuador
Anti-Cañari discrimination desu

We wouldn't want another war.

>At least they weren't foolish enough to invite Israel or any sub-Saharan countries.

This. Israel is pure WeWuzism.

Explain how I'm wrong.

>no Australians

Because Australian civilisation has only existed since 1788.

Before reddit jumps on this post consider this:
>considering pre colonial aboriginals congruent with Australian civilisation is similar to considering the Iroquois confederacy the ancestor of the United States, the Ottoman empire is a continuation of Rome or that modern day France is the heir of Neanderthal culture.

Greece is Europe you retarded mongoloid.

Neither of the ten countries in the conference are a continuation of ancient civilisations. Their claim is equally absurd.

This is an American tier post. I shouldn't have to answer this on a history board.

Shouldn't the likes of Turkey and Syria be invited considering Anatolian and Syrian civs?

>Europeans not invited
>Greece and Italy.
Ok?

Modern inhabitants have little to no relation to former inhabitants but are foreign invaders. Syrians are generally Arab, not Assyrian. Turks are Turks.

nor is united bongistan you absolute chav, get out

Abos don't have a civilization.

He isn't wrong, as countries they are quite young. I mean, Italy is younger than the fucking USA as a unified entity.

Shouting "we wuz romans and sheit" only makes you look retarded.

They fucking invited Egypt and it is also Arabized to hell. Not to mention "Modern inhabitants have little to no relation to former inhabitants" applies to everyone on that damn list.

I was going on more Turkey and Syria probably having historians interested in, I dunno, Civilizations that were there before them like the Hittites, Hellenized Anatolian Kingdoms Like Pontos, Assyrians, n shiet. Not wewuzery.

This is a wewuzery gathering, ya fuckin mook.

>Wewuzery gathering,
Doubt.jpg.

More like a gathering of historians in areas of the world with heavy concentration of studying the ancients.

>First Hellenic Republic Independence: January 1, 1822
>Egyptian Independence: February 28, 1922
>Bolivian Independence: July 10, 1825
>Indian Independence: 15 August 1947
>Kingdom of Iraq Independence: October 3, 1932
>Mexican Independence: September 16, 1810
>Bolivian Independence: July 10, 1825

Tell me, how can a state be a successor to a previous one if it gained it's independence from an Empire? Is the succession just put on hold for the decades or centuries which the land or people are under the rule of another state? Only Iran and China can be viewed as successors of states older than the United Kingdom, and even then, they both were under foreign empires for centuries millennia after the end of the states of the ancient civilizations.

I never said it was.

>More like a gathering of historians in areas of the world with heavy concentration of studying the ancients
Well, they left out several pre-eminent scholars from countries not on the list and the list reeks of wewuz. Looks like a wewuz gathering to me.

>End of the British Empire: 1964.
Congrats on your current configuration.

It's a forum of ancient civilizations, thus they invited the modern countries that represented those ancient civs. It's not based on how old the modern country is, but rather the modern countries which happen to inhabit the space those ancient peoples did. desu if you're on Veeky Forums and don't understand this pls leave

this, Jesus some people are just stupid.

Don't mind the Britbong, he's still nursing his dead umpire

we wuz incas n shiet
t. peru

Ah the we wuz summit. Pressing issues should be why they need more EU money and how America has no culture

>they invited the modern countries that represented those ancient civs

Doesn't work like that

>modern countries which happen to inhabit the space those ancient peoples did

now we are getting closer, the list was missing Macedonia and Romania though

>Syrians are generally Arab, not Assyrian. Turks are Turks.
And yet all the hispanic south and central american countries got invited

>Turks are Turks

No they aren't. Turks have very little Turkic genes. They don't look like Asians.

First of all you're some Anglo butthurt retard who's shitting in his pants. Second, why would Romania and Macedonia be invited. They didn't develop significant ancient literate civilizations.

In particular, I don't get the reference to Macedonia (with Romania you obviously had Cucuteni in mind). Might as well invite Bulgaria and Serbia in that case.

this. Why would Macedonia be invited? Slavs aren't ancient.
Romania has a bit more of a point, I guess. Romania would be just as questionable as Mexico and other mixed countries like Egypt though. If you're going to be strict then I guess Greece and China are the only ones that really belong.

I hope they invited Assyrians and Copts and not Iraqi and Egyptian Arabs

>implying Aztecs or Mayans were ancient
>implying it shouldn't only by Egypt, Greece, Italy, Iraq, India, and China

>mayas and aztecs were the first mesoamerican civilizations
>what are the olmecs

Because we wuz kangz and they're trying to keep the mountain celtic man down

fucking rivervalleycunts

>united kingdom is the british empire
The kingdom was always scotland and england, even today the full title is the united kingdom and northern ireland.

He's right tho

Britain, defined as a united kingdom, goes all the way back to 1707 with the anglo-scot parliamentary union act.

If they invited Israel, then they'd have 1 white country there. and we can't have that.

Why not? The important thing is taking care of the ancient ruins and archeological artifacts from their respective agricultural revolutions, not stroking their dicks.

>>Bolivia
My only issue with this list

If we're talking about the colonial empire then the first colony of new france was set up in in the late 1600's, so still older than all the nations listed, by about 200 years.

>he doesn't know about the Teotihaucans or Cholua

Because it's a forum for ancient civilizations

I can understand why Turkey isn't there since Greece, Iraq and Iran all probably dislike Turkey. Stuff like the destroying Greek heritage in Anatolia and funding ISIS against Iraq and Iran. That and Turkey itself doesn't have any strong claim or attempt to promote any connection to people like the Hittites the same way others do. Syria is a fair point though.

It's The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland you absolute pleb.

Syria probably hasn't got a single historian left alive to send to be fair

and Turkey would just screech autistically throughout the whole thing