Are White Western people historically unique?

> than they were to Arabs or other near Asians.
False actually, modern populations of the Greeks are closest to the Ancient greeks who were Neolithic farmers (similar to Ancient Levantine and Anatolian populations)

Greeks colonized the very near east, North Africa and the West but they definitely were not transposed to Greece from Asia. They came down through the Balkans.

Linguistically but not genetically. Scientific studies don't lie.

sciencemag.org/news/2017/08/greeks-really-do-have-near-mythical-origins-ancient-dna-reveals
sciencemag.org/news/2017/08/greeks-really-do-have-near-mythical-origins-ancient-dna-reveals

evolutionistx.wordpress.com/2016/02/19/turkey-not-very-turkic-a-genetic-history-of-the-turkic-peoples/

It's an interesting topic.
When looking at the warfare, one gets a feeling that europeans were focused on individual glory and heroism. Like, everyone form the celts and germans to the etruscans and mycenaeans. Only major exception would be the greeks and romans I guess.
I also think european culture has tribalism ingrained in it to the very core. Whenever you're talking about celtic tribes, greek city states or modern nationalities, there is always a very tribal attitude to everything, with the romans being an exception here too. There’s a lot more interesting things to this, but I'll stop here since the majority of Veeky Forums likes to shit on topics like these.

>evolutionistx.wordpress.com/2016/02/19/turkey-not-very-turkic-a-genetic-history-of-the-turkic-peoples/

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_studies_on_Turkish_people

>Eastern armies would wage wars of attrition, often over petty casus belli and come to terms after suffering relatively minor defeats

Lmao no? During the Medieval Ages, European wars were small scale and often involved something ridiculously petty (i.e. land titles). Duke Y gets prissy over a windmill of Count X that intrudes on his fief. Niggerous small-scale war followed.

Meanwhile the Caliphates were bent on world empire, while the Chinese were fighting off nomadic invasions or internal rebellions the scale of which dwarfed wars in Europe up until the 1600s came along.

>The primary theme of Western literature is the search for glory
Lmaaao. That's the Greco-Roman interpretation of history.

Not so much Christian Europe.

Greeks, like most South Europeans boast more Neolithic and Copper Age farmer DNA that was transported to the region from modern-day Anatolia. If that doesn't change your mind I'll also post the recent genetic study of Ancient Greeks which disproves that they descended from Indo-Europeans.

Which one on the bottom are ancient Greeks

Here's the recent studies of Ancient Minoan and Mycenaean DNA. If you ignore that, then, ask yourself: does an African cease to be an African if he doesn't speak an African language?
As for the previous image, as far as I know LBKT and Starcevo are the groups who migrated through that general are of Europe.

>nature.com/nature/journal/v548/n7666/full/nature23310.html?foxtrotcallback=true

The Greeks that are responsible for Greek civilization are the Greeks that existed when that civilization was exceptional. Archaic Greeks didn't have a particularly impressive civilization, so I'm wondering if you have any evidence that those Greeks were some kind of levantine Arab or something.

Not that guy, and I'm not gonna get into a debate about DNA, but if you look at Greek civilization, they had way more in common with the Near East than other IE groups. They have always had more contact with the Near East. The idea that the Greeks descended exclusively the Balkans just doesn't feel right.

no civilization is radically different beyond superficial things like music and art, they all gravitate towards whatever is practical given their circumstances

Not exclusively, no. He's claiming the Indo-European influence didn't make a dent in the genetics of the population, which I find ridiculous.

They didn't make a very big dent which I clearly showed you. Linguistics /=/ genetics. They were not Indo-European then, and even now with more admixture still aren't. I find it ridiculous that you ignore everything else that states the contrary.

>greeks wuz indo europeans n shit

You're comparing modern Greeks to Archaic peoples that lived in Greece.

Neither of these groups are explicitly the Greeks of Socrates and Aristotle unless you provide a source for that.

Yeah, few things come to mind:

- Obsession with abstract ideas that aren't necessarily theological. Like an actual pathological obsession that tears societies apart sometimes.
- Following on from the above, the obsession with law as a sort of quasi-spiritual concept unto itself.
- Fixation with the concept of liberty. Liberty not just from foreign powers but the libertas of individuals in monarchies and republics alike.
- Statecraft geared towards achieving these things: Aristocratic Republics are probably the best example. Very unique form of government not really pioneered anywhere else in the world.
- The idea of the "hero" (literally Homeric).
- Romantic love: I've lived in Hong Kong, Singapore, Oman and the UAE - Non-white people simply don't have the same emphasis on romantic love, it was never a part of their culture or history, asides from a few scattered myths. Men and women of the peasantry in Medieval Europe (and most of classical Europe) could pick their own partner.
- Following on from the above, the high degree of respect afforded to women (or "insipid women veneration" as Schopenhauer called it), ranging from insane Anatolian mother-Goddess cults to Victorian ideas of "women's priority". This isn't a modern thing, women in the Roman Republic had the right of divorce for example, and domestic violence was always looked upon poorly in western societies.

And then you have the physical aspects. Europeans just look very unique.

>They were not Indo-European then

Most Europeans aren't. Indo-European migrations didn't displace the original people, they just radically changed their culture.

Oh, and I'll append two more things:

- The idea of universalism. Other races are pretty content having dual-track morality (one for ingroup/one for outgroup), whereas whites are more universalist. Consider America's anti-miscegenation laws, which applied to both white men and white women, whereas historical prohibitions on miscegenation outside of the west have almost always penalized an ingroup's women while giving the men free reign to fuck who they want.
- A genuine, bona-fide passion for other cultures. Europeans essentially created the field of comparative linguistics single-handedly. You don't create a field like that unless you have a genuine interest in races/cultures other than your own (contrary to what that faggot Ed Said thought).

lol. user, if modern Greeks are relatively unchanged from Archaic Greeks what would be different in 300BC? Are you proposing that Greeks from 1200BC to 300BC suddenly got replaced by IE then reverted back to being primarily non IE by 2017?

It's happened before in world history. Screenshots of Algeria's generic profile would show something like that for example.

You're not Western.

>The primary theme of Western literature is the search for glory (a man transcending his own life through his fame) and in Eastern literature it's a set of stories that justify your position in life/acceptable behaviour.
>impl
When Europe became Christianized, the primary narrative became "everything points to the last judgement and all everyone does is contribute towards it."

The Western World isn't a fucking Classical-Period stasis.

By that logic Indians and Iranians are part of western civilization too.

Indo-Europeans split off from Iranians before they invaded India

That was with modern technology ang colonialism. I highly doubt a genetic Germanic migration with no trace in the archaelogical or historical record supplanted local greeks, created the Greek Golden Age, then got replaced by the indigenous population without any mention in the historical or archaeological record

>ITT wh*Tes sub """""humans"""

Not German, indo-european.

And it's clear something like that happened because Greek is an Indo-European language and falls in line with a pattern seen elsewhere in Europe of Indo-Europeans coming in and dominating the society.

They weren't the majority, but they could have been the ruling class, which is how they imposed their language on the locals.

Everyone is historically unique.

Europeans got gunpowder and their success after that is for obvious reasons.

Yeah that did happen, they were the Mycaneans (the actual IE speakers) who emulated the Minoan culture (non IE speaker), who were the ancient Greek DNA you're supposedly saying as too ancient. There was no intermediate invasion, just the Main Mycanean ones who were still genetically closer to Minoans and Modern Greeks than they are to """Indo-Europeans"

Minoans were unique, every Western civilization that followed was simply a copy of their individualistic, scientifically curious, innovative outlook.

Until the Minoans, every civilization before them had a collectivist ethos - Religion was omnipresent, the power of the ruler was absolute, the lowest individuals did not matter, brutality was an accepted part of life, and warfare and gloryfication of the ruling class was the obsession.

The Minoans were unique, in that religion had a significant role but wasn't omnipresent, the ruler was authoritarian but not a despot, lower classes could actually read and write and enjoyed very decent standards of living (for their time period), warfare was rare, most of their art and frescoes depict scenes of daily life (animals, sports, fashion, landscapes) rather than images of the ruler crushing his enemies or foreigners being conquered as it was in Egypt, China or Mesopotamia.

In the East, almost every work of art had to do with religion, warfare or gloryfication of the rulers. The Minoans were the first to concern themselves with things like fashion, sports, and simply what was aesthetic. Beauty for beauty's sake, curiosity for curiosity's sake, the enjoyment of life and the idealization of everything that made life worth living. In the East, only the ruler and the Gods were important enough to be portrayed in art, over and over again. In Crete, the individuals were important, and the focus of their art.

The Greeks (particularly the Athenians) would inherit much of this individualistic, positive outlook and from them it passed to the Romans and became part of what today we consider the "Western ethos".

Yes, Greek is Indo-European in origin, nobody ever said it wasn't. I even specified "linguistics /=/ genetics". Modern Greeks are relatively unchanged from their ancient Neolithic farmer roots that originated in Asia minor AKA Anatolia. They aren't Indo-European. There was no massive displacement, only a small portion of admixture occurred which I already stated earlier.

Come on, "White Western" people means fuck all. It is something the British invented so the Irish wouldn't join with the Blacks and Indians and fuck them over.

Who is white? Depends who you ask. Who is Western? Yeah, the Irish, I'm sure. But they're not white, are they? Not if you ask the English. But of course now we all have a consumerist holiday celebrating the potato plague, it's all good.

Ah, you mean the Greeks? But they're half-turk goat-fuckers? Even before the conquest, the were all over the Mediterranean, fucking Persians, Egyptians, and Nubians. Their real Alphas went to India to get their rocks off.

The Romans? But they were a mongrel people interbreeding every single ethnicity within armies march of the mediterranean.

The Italians? See the Romans.

The British? They took every opportunity to get off their godforsaken island so they could create mongrel bastards any place the sun shone and the natives weren't actively killing them in their sleep. Every colonial power was the same.

The whole OP is so generalizing and vague, you're not actually saying anything at all.

You know fuck all about Minoans.

beautiful post.

Western civilization was not individualist historically, that's just fucktarded Anglos thinking everyone else was like them.

>Not if you ask the English.

That's all wrapped up in class stuff too, though. Yanks don't really understand class systems, IME.

Get the accent right and any individual Irish were said to be always white. Get it wrong a few times and you never were.

Take it with Edward MacNall Burns buddy, my post is based on what he wrote on his book, which I happen to agree with.

Thank you.

Nope, Western civilization was historically more individualist than those of the Near East. It is a spectrum though, some were more individualistic than others.

Athenian civilization seems collectivist today compared to our modern culture, but compare it with contemporaries in Babylon or Egypt and there is a noticeable difference.

Incorrect.
Ancient Greeks celebrating athletes of worth at the Olympics, vase painters signing their works, and philosophers debating their pet theories with one another in the agora prove unequivocally that they were a society centered around the individual.

No more than the Kim regime.

Were there any individuals in Ancient Greece who could not simply walk into the agora and begin to speak? or into the olympics and begin to run?

Stop posting this whore you Pollack retard.

There were tests, oaths and rigorous training periods before an athlete would be accepted as an official Olympian, just as it is today.
Our modern society isn't individualistic because I can't just show up at the stadium and start running next to Usain Bolt?

"No."

Also not a Pollack.

Why do anglos write "Pollack" when the proper word is "Polak"?

>Our modern society isn't individualistic because I can't just show up at the stadium and start running next to Usain Bolt?

Yes. If you can't do it for a reason other than your speed at running.

Were there any in Ancient Greece who were in some way prevented from speaking in the agora or competing in the olympics before anyone hears what they say or how they run?

>Eastern armies would wage wars of attrition, often over petty casus belli and come to terms after suffering relatively minor defeats (once it was established who was more powerful).
complete bullshit, pulled out of your ass. petty cassus belli? what the fuck are on about?
See: Every Chinese conflict fought to absurd ends.
>Western philosophy is focused on finding universal truths whereas Eastern philosophy focused on living/governing well.
By "western" philosophy you mean "greek" philosophy, in which case the rest of the west was exactly like the east, more concerned with position is life.
>The primary theme of Western literature is the search for glory (a man transcending his own life through his fame) and in Eastern literature it's a set of stories that justify your position in life/acceptable behaviour.
Epic of Gilgamesh? Epics of various Indian kings? Epic of Darkness? The various personal stories of the Romance of the 3 kingdoms?
You're basing all this bullshit on absolutely nothing.

No, and none of this has anything to do with individualism.
I think it's pretty clear now you're just baiting.

Frog then. Even worse.

> Are Eastern peoples historically unique?

> The fighting style of their armies, the writing style of their literature, the focuses of their philosophy are radically different from the rest of the world, even nearby civilizations.

> Since antiquity, the armies of the East and the armies of the West had radically different styles of combat. Eastern armies would try to deal a knockout blow as soon as possible and annex territory until the other party came to terms. Since war was more total, they would often avoid war by calculating how powerful each party was and settle the dispute diplomatically.

> Western armies would wage wars of attrition, often over petty casus belli and come to terms after suffering relatively minor defeats (once it was established who was more powerful).

> The primary theme of Eastern literature is the search for the divine (a man transcending his own life through his fame) and in Western literature it's a set of stories that justify your position in life/acceptable behaviour.

> Eastern philosophy is focused on finding trascendental truth whereas Western philosophy focused on living/governing well the polis

Do you even sophism, retard?

*(a man transcending his own life through searching deep himself and his enviroment)

My bad

It does though. You can't say the society was based on individualism if most of those in the society were forced by custom to not be individuals. That is a typical 'collectivist' society, where those who own a lot get to be individuals and everyone else gets to work for them and witness an individual.

>The Minoans were the first to concern themselves with things like fashion, sports, and simply what was aesthetic.
horseshit
ancient mesopotamian civilizations had very complex societies with complex dress, design concepts, civic philosophy, and leisure activities.
Minoans didn't fucking invent fashion.

>most of those in the society were forced by custom to not be individuals
Where is that? Since the adoption of coinage from Lydia there was necessarily unprecedented social mobility in Greece that simply did not exist anywhere else at the time.

I'm thinking of non-citizen residents and slaves. Did you need the money before you could be an individual and do all the individualist things you mentioned?

You are assuming that minoans were "western" in the modern sense of the word and ignoring the fact that they might have been "eastern" in character. The nominal separation of East and West comes with Sparta and Athenas vs the persians. Outside that most ancient peoples, including the PIE were "Eastern" in their ways of being.

West and East are vague, often contradictory terms mostly used in politics to justify whatever action the West (which on itself is a vague notion) to other nations

*self contradictory
I mean

Are you implying slaves can't be individuals?
I guess we'll just ignore all the Roman gladiators who won their freedom, fame and fortune becoming the celebrities of their day?

Only that they were lesser individuals in a society that said it was okay to keep slaves.

Did slaves have to follow any special rules? Why would an individualist society that was ideologically behind the idea of individualism write off so many individuals as livestock?

>won their freedom

christ almighty

So every Greek and Roman had to first win their freedom from slavery?

The western world kept the institution of slavery until well into the 19th Century. Were we not a society that celebrates individualism until then or do you still believe we haven't achieved that like you suggested earlier?

I'm just confused by the idea that a society can be individualistic when it relies on some individuals not being individuals, but being apparatus of a real individual. Certainly a society like that will SAY it's individualistic, since the people who get to write the history do enjoy being individuals. But for the average member it absolutely isn't.

Are you saying a society is individualistic only because it's possible to escape the rule of another individual? Then every society counts.

>Romantic love: I've lived in Hong Kong, Singapore, Oman and the UAE - Non-white people simply don't have the same emphasis on romantic love
Ive lived in UK, USA and NZ, i am a non white and I can honestly say that White people dont have a concept of romantic love, it is literally a game for them where the woman ultimately wins, that isnt love that is just passive aggressiveness between two people which is basically all culture of white, passive aggressiveness. True love is infinite compassion and loyalty for each other, white people dont really have that for anyone but a more powerful person than themselves.

>white people dont really have that for anyone but a more powerful person than themselves.

but that's the definition of individualism

I could blather the same about IVC which had a lack of religious symbology in most of their daily routines but you know that is as true as your shitty postulation.

>Eastern armies would wage wars of attrition, often over petty casus belli and come to terms after suffering relatively minor defeats

Sounds like Western Europe between the death of Charlemagne and the rise of Napoleon. That's rather conveniently ignoring 1000 odd years of history.

If you must know, I am from Argentina, not that it matters.

You have a good point, but many authors consider Minoans the first "Western" civilization. They are culturally closer to what we consider "the West" than any other preceding civilization.

It is a matter of degree, as I said before. Yes, the Greeks or Romans had slavery, but they also had the concept of individualism which is reflected on their philosophy, their culture, their laws or their political systems.

The idea of government existing to serve the citizens or the common good rather than the Gods or the whim of the ruler is unique to the Greeks and Romans (and most likely to the Minoans, based on everything else we know about them).

Yes, the Babylonians had leisure activities. That's not the point. The point is the individual in Ancient Babylon was not considered as important as in Greece or Rome. He was nothing.

>but that's the definition of individualism
Only a whitey would say that, it is called slavery, why do you think the Swedes are all dying out and being overrun by muslims? They obey their masters and governments like slaves. individualism is only earned through position in society, no one is born with it. If you think you are then you are a most deluded fool.

Then slavery was some kind of error that the Greeks just could not process?

>no one is born with it

You are literally born with nothing else, except some small debt your parents owe to you.

You cant compare babylonians with roman/greek

Things were different in babylonian era, why you people act like this?
People like you always want to put romans and greeks on top of other civs, that id pretty pathetic

No, like I said it is a matter of degree.
Rome wasn't a utopia.

But even the shittiest Emperors had to ensure Romans had bread and circus to stay in power. There were laws against killing or mistreating your slaves, slaves could win their freedom in gladiatorial combat, even Spartacus was considered a sort of folk hero by many Romans, his "legend" lives on until today.

In the Near East, before they were Hellenized at least, such a thing was unthinkable.

On what basis are Greek and Roman societies working for the "greater good" where eastern ones are working at the whims of a ruler? The Romans has selfish self-interested Senators, Aristocrats, Emperors, (and earlier kings), and businessmen. The Greeks coined the term "tyrant" and practiced making a pariah out of their most capable leaders in order to make power moves and such. The Minoans literally participated in the same palace economies found all over Anatolia, Mesopotamia, and Egypt, the idea that Minoan governance was unique is not even remotely substantiated. The idea that the Greeks and Romans governed in different ways than easterners is just wishful thinking. The Romans and Greeks were not the only ones to have citizens armies and pseudo-republican/democratic leadership styles among nobles and aristocrats.

Also, you literally said the Minoans "were the first" to into fashion etc. Which is completely 100% wrong regardless of the "point" you were trying to make.

OH. So some people were individuals and some people weren't. This sets them apart from those societies that somehow contained no individuals.

Near East
>zero social mobility
>zero documentation of persons except royals

Greco-Roman world
>flexible society (not tied to your land or trade) >records of artists, poets, athletes, politicians, philosophers, scientists, etc

Those are differences between a standard collectivist society and one that, while still maintaining statehood and the obligations that come with it, celebrates individualism.
If you'd really like to see it firsthand, compare the records of a building project from Persia to that of Greece. The Persian document describes how glorious the building will be for the king and all the different lands in his domain the materials came from. The Greek document lists all the individuals who worked on the building and how much they were paid for their work.

>You are literally born with nothing else, except some small debt your parents owe to you
>except some small debt your parents owe to you
What? Relationships arent a ledger book with + and - you autistic fuck.
Parents take care of you because that is their moral and natural imperative, not for some material gain. You are born with everything your parents have provided for you which may change according to how strong or weak your parents are.

>wh*te
>civilization

>In the Near East, before they were Hellenized at least, such a thing was unthinkable.
What is your source?
You keep in mind that in the near east, there was more than 1 civ right?

>pseudo-republican/democratic leadership
Mind providing some example civilizations that did this before the Greeks?

I think you're basing your theory on the fact that you know more about western history than anything else.
Spartacus wasn't the only slave/peasant person to lead a revolt and have his/her name known. There are many examples of folk heroes h in Indian and Chinese histories. There absolutely WERE rules in the east about how slaves could be treated, some of said rules are the earliest of recorded laws from mesopotamia and Egypt.
Slaves from the east could gain freedom in various ways. Gladiotorial combat didn't exist in the Roman form but slaves often were used in bets and shows between nobles in ancient China and Korea.

Also, Roman slaves didn't have the right to win their freedom (sometimes they were given their freedom by the emperor) If their owner never let them go, they'd never get set free. If their owner didn't want them to be a gladiator, they would not be able to fight.

> You have a good point, but many authors consider Minoans the first "Western" civilization. They are culturally closer to what we consider "the West" than any other preceding civilization.
Any source or specific reason for that? They don't seem different from, say, Egyptians.

Fellow argie btw

>Liu Bang, peasant to emperor
>Zhu Yaunshang, peasant to emperor
>Xixi, manchu family to dowager Empress
>Ching Shih. prostitute to leader of massive piracy operation
I know they're not "near east" but they defintely aren't westerners

You probably wont find any as levant/mesopotamia saw got destroyed many times and most thing about them were destroyed but its known that phoenicians had a republic and some sort of democracy and they influenced greeks on that

Its funny that people like you believe greeks and romans were the first in everything

My understanding was always that Rome was distinguished, like the later British Empire, by their willingness to pilfer ideas and individuals from other societies. Batman pride. Proud enough to believe you can definitely do the thing, not too proud to roll up your sleeves and do whatever work is needed first.

>rising the ranks through opportunistic open armed rebellion is the same thing as intrinsic social mobility through the accumulation of wealth via legal labor
Not even remotely.

I cant believe there are people like this in this world

Maybe they were fucking destroyed?
Mesopotamia civ is way older than greece and you think they just fucked around doing shit?

As you probably know Greek democracy was an organized oligarchy. having a vote among aristocrats/nobles isn't unique.
Ancient Mesopotamia city states (Sumerian) were powered by a council of elders and younger men.
Ancient Indian city-states and even larger states had councils. Some of such were even named "raga" and functioned throughout many clans and states.
Independent usage of pseudo-democratic governments (not pre-greek but definitely not greek influenced as you impied with "before the Greeks") has been found in mesoamerica.

Where is the evidence Phoenicia influenced the Greeks in politics?

The difference is only if the society tries to prevent people from rising through the ranks. Those that do not may be individualistic ideologically, those that do will definitely still call themselves individualistic.

Doesn't really matter if they keep you down with top down force or peer pressure or legalism.

Not him but
>what are confucian exams
>what is Gobineau's critic calling the chinese democratic for holding those exams, open to everybody (in his opinion democracy was degenerate)