View Full Version : Were the ancient phoenicians white?
Dragonair
09-24-2007, 08:25 PM
I think yes, they were Meds, what makes them white.
Vindex
09-24-2007, 08:31 PM
And jew think you are a med so that makes you White too......
Dragonair
09-24-2007, 08:34 PM
And jew think you are a med so that makes you White too......
I am not called a "Med Jew" for nothing.
There are Jews in every color. Are Ethiopian Jews black? If so, why do German Jews are not Germanics?
WFHermans
09-24-2007, 08:47 PM
http://www.oceansatlas.com/unatlas/about/research/background/i027-1.gif
Arrival of Phoenician trade vessels in the Nile River valley. From an image on a sepulchre in Thebes, 15th century.
Being White, as opposing to white, is not a matter of skin color only.
Dragonair
09-24-2007, 08:50 PM
http://www.oceansatlas.com/unatlas/about/research/background/i027-1.gif
Arrival of Phoenician trade vessels in the Nile River valley. From an image on a sepulchre in Thebes, 15th century.
Being White, as opposing to white, is not a matter of skin color only.
Pigmentation does not matter to me at all.
WFHermans
09-24-2007, 09:47 PM
There is some pitch dark group in Africa that descends from Arabia and is technically Caucasoid. An isolated group of negroes could develop a light skin if there wouldn't be much sunlight.
Ambrosio Spinola
09-25-2007, 07:57 AM
I would not consider them my kin. Of course one would have to aknowledge the fact that ancient Phoenicians must not necesarily have to look like 2007 Lebanese for all that area was devastated and repopulated several times along the milenia.
ogenoct
09-25-2007, 08:11 AM
why do German Jews are not Germanics?
A lot of German Jews are Germanics. Ashkenazi Jews are basically Germanic Jews since they originated in Southern Germany. They even spoke a Germanic language, Yiddish. Hence, Ashkenazi Jews had more in common with the original White settler population in America, the English and the Germans, than Sephardic Jews.
Constantin
Arminius
09-25-2007, 03:54 PM
A lot of German Jews are Germanics. Ashkenazi Jews are basically Germanic Jews since they originated in Southern Germany. They even spoke a Germanic language, Yiddish. Hence, Ashkenazi Jews had more in common with the original White settler population in America, the English and the Germans, than Sephardic Jews.
Constantin
This is true. Even so, Germanic is a cultural group which encompasses a great many people in many different parts of the world, because it includes all English, Dutch, and German (etc.) speaking people that have emigrated elsewhere. Jew only denotes religion. A jew can be slavic, germanic or belong to which ever culture. They can also be of any race.
Phoenicians were not "white" (go here (http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=441756&postcount=23) for my definition).
Not that it actually matters at all. "White" means nothing important.
Dragonair
10-03-2007, 03:54 PM
This is true. Even so, Germanic is a cultural group which encompasses a great many people in many different parts of the world, because it includes all English, Dutch, and German (etc.) speaking people that have emigrated elsewhere. Jew only denotes religion. A jew can be slavic, germanic or belong to which ever culture. They can also be of any race.
Phoenicians were not "white" (go here (http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=441756&postcount=23) for my definition).
Not that it actually matters at all. "White" means nothing important.
The defination of white people as Europeans is a bad way of thinking in my opinion. First of all, "European culture" does not mean all who reside in the European continent. Greeks, for example, are not culturally "European", but "Mediterranean". A seperate civilization. The Greek alphabet, in fact, was influenced by the Phoenician one. The same idea works for race-does it make any sense that the white race closes it's gates in Constantinople? I would like an evidance for that.
Let's take for example a part of my own racial type:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenoid
Carleton wrote that the racial type in question is very similar to the Dinaric race; the only difference is that they have a somewhat darker pigmentation, most probably due to racial mixture with the Mediterraneans and the Alpines. He described the Armenoid as a subrace of the Caucasoid race. The Armenoid people are found throughout the whole Eurasia, however the largest concentrations occur within Asia Minor. They are known as the "true" Caucasians. Armenoids are relatively tall, usually have somewhat darker skins, large round eyes usually black, a round Brachyocephalic head shape with a straight backing, high cheekbones and non-prominent chins. Lips are full usually with often hooked noses. This racial group includes the Armenians, the Assyrians, and the people from the Caucasus. It is also an element in India and Southern Europe. Armenoids were considered Indo-European and not related to Semitic.[2]
"Semitic" does not say much by meanings of race, but as you can see here, this isn't even a semitic sub-race, but simply darker dinarics, who probably got their darker tone from other white racial types. So the Armenoid is simply a Dinaric, as skin color is irrelevent. What would pervent you from seeing Armenoids as white? The fact that they do not reside in Europe? It is not "white nationalism" if so, but "European nationalism".
And you say that "white" means nothing to you, what is important?
Arminius
10-03-2007, 04:19 PM
The defination of white people as Europeans is a bad way of thinking in my opinion. First of all, "European culture" does not mean all who reside in the European continent.
It is simply geography. "White" is not a cultural designation to me. I would say Indo-European, if I wanted to... but not "white".
What would pervent you from seeing Armenoids as white?
The fact that they do not reside in Europe?
Yes. However, I place more emphasis on the fact they are caucasian above that of a person being white. Neither mean much to me. Culture does mean a lot to me, but not race.
If you are using white as a synonym for caucasian, then its use is rather redundant. Especially considering how many times I heard "White Caucasian" being uttered.
It is not "white nationalism" if so, but "European nationalism".
Not once on my long stay on the Phora or on earlier incarnations did I claim to be a White Nationalist. I am not a European Nationalist either. Should I be nationalist for the EU? If not, then which country? There is no current country in the world that I can see as being worthy of such devotion.
And you say that "white" means nothing to you, what is important?
What is important in my life? Family, friends, work, knowledge, fulfillment, etc.
I consider many things to be important... a label is not one of them. Because that is all that word means to me, a way of describing a particular type of person, a label.
Dragonair
10-03-2007, 05:05 PM
It is simply geography. "White" is not a cultural designation to me. I would say Indo-European, if I wanted to... but not "white".
By the same idea, you are not white, beeing a north American. It is true you are not native, but then again, Trohans was not in the geographic defination of Europe and were white.
Yes. However, I place more emphasis on the fact they are caucasian above that of a person being white. Neither mean much to me. Culture does mean a lot to me, but not race.
If you are using white as a synonym for caucasian, then its use is rather redundant. Especially considering how many times I heard "White Caucasian" being uttered.
I would say that "white" is Europeans, Mediterraneans, Indo-Europeans such as Persians. "Semitic" does not say much for me. Indians and similars are not white in my opinion.
Not once on my long stay on the Phora or on earlier incarnations did I claim to be a White Nationalist. I am not a European Nationalist either. Should I be nationalist for the EU? If not, then which country? There is no current country in the world that I can see as being worthy of such devotion.
True, but I said that in general.
What is important in my life? Family, friends, work, knowledge, fulfillment, etc.
I consider many things to be important... a label is not one of them. Because that is all that word means to me, a way of describing a particular type of person, a label.
So you are obviously not a nationalist. Not that I say you claimed to be.
-------
What is disturbing me, is, for example, people who accept Dinarics as white, but not Armeniods. The Armeniod is basically a darker Dinaric, and as pigmentation is irrelevent, what is the Armeniod if not a Dinaric?
Arminius
10-03-2007, 09:07 PM
By the same idea, you are not white, beeing a north American. It is true you are not native, but then again, Trohans was not in the geographic defination of Europe and were white.
Where do you think I was born? Anyway, even if they weren't continental Europeans, they are European through heritage. If not, then are Negroes in Europe considered European?
I would say that "white" is Europeans, Mediterraneans, Indo-Europeans such as Persians. "Semitic" does not say much for me. Indians and similars are not white in my opinion.
Subjective and fluid. That's why I don't like using the word. Would you know someone was an Indian versus a Persian? Sometimes its hard to tell. Who is considered white varies so much; it is vague, to say the least.
What is disturbing me, is, for example, people who accept Dinarics as white, but not Armeniods. The Armeniod is basically a darker Dinaric, and as pigmentation is irrelevent, what is the Armeniod if not a Dinaric?
Why does it matter who is considered white? So much obsession... :indifferent:
Dragonair
10-03-2007, 09:16 PM
As I promised, I'm closing all discussions on questions of the defination of white ormy own whiteness. Let's continue with the original topic.
vBulletin, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.