 |
|
VetLegion
|
|
quote:
Serbia was part of the Bulgarian-Empire some time before, so what? Hungary was part of "Great Austria", yet Hungarians are not Austrians... |
true. many other examples in the balkans. Bosnia was once part of Croatia, but also vice versa
|
|
| |
|
|
|
OneFootInTheGrave
|
 |
Kuzelj
Nov 2000
time: 05:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by VetLegion
quote:
Serbia was part of the Bulgarian-Empire some time before, so what? Hungary was part of "Great Austria", yet Hungarians are not Austrians... |
true. many other examples in the balkans. Bosnia was once part of Croatia, but also vice versa |
Never heard of that one...
Bulgaria was never part of Serbia to my knowledge, biggest Serbia was todays serbia(minus vojvodina) + todays FYROM, Albania, and nothern 1/2 of Greece.
However Serbia was a part of so to speak "great Bulgaria" at an earlier point in time arounf 900's, but that was the time when a true Serbian state did not even exist so it was just a territory Bulgars under their king Simeon I think conquered, but Serbs took over them later, and it stayed as Serbia today... Serbs at the beginning started in todays southern Serbia and Kosovo.
And Bosnia never had Croatia as such... Bosnia to my knowledge came to existance after Hungarian/Croatian union, and what was a big part of Croatia before, just went independant, as the Lords in what is today known as Bosnia were too strong for Hungarian king to keep paying him taxes. And they had a "first protestant" so to say church... one that was independent of the Pope - which was unthinkable at the time for the resto of Europe - and the Bosnian rulers - later to be Kings, supported the "church", I think that was the name that region get from the church (or maybe the other way around.) The church dissapeared during Turkish occupation. -or better to say 500yr rule.
Last edited by OneFootInTheGrave on 22-11-2002 at 03:58
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ranskaldan
|
 |
Beijing ~ Singapore ~ Toronto ~ All hail to the new Rome
Sep 2001
time: 00:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wernazuma III
Piktis: I know that the interpretation of Herodotos' mention isn't convincing. But you can't give me an argument why Finns should be Turko-Mongolian as there is no such argument. |
There is a tentative link between Uralic (Finns, Magyars) and Altaic (Mongols, Turks). It's not utterly proven yet.
quote:
Language is, in general terms, a very good indicator of defining a people's relation to others. And linguists tell us that Finnish, Estonian and Hungarian are related among each other but NOT with Turkish or Mongolian, so what does this tell us? |
No... language is not a good indicator of relationships between ethnicities. The Arab assimilation of Egypt and Syria, for example, didn't involve a lot of Arab blood entering Egypt or Syria. The Arabs simply moved in, dominated, and allowed their culture to seep down into society. The Egyptians, for example, simply learnt Arabic for practical purposes and left Coptic behind, until they could speak only Arabic and acquired an Arab self-identity.
The same can be said, more or less, about the Sinicization of Modern China, since Chinese civilization began in an area that covers only a dozen counties today. The rest of China is a result of Chinese settlers moving outwards and intermarrying with locals - creating a nation that is culturally monolithic but genetically varied. Modern Southern Chinese are probably genetically closer to Hawaiians than Northern Chinese.
Oh and of course: going back to the question:
my ancestry is:
99% Chinese (half North, half South)
1% something else
(according to certain accounts, one of my lines *might* have European elements in it.)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ranskaldan
|
|
Beijing ~ Singapore ~ Toronto ~ All hail to the new Rome
Sep 2001
time: 00:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by orange
Erm, while I agree with the rest of what you said, I don't think this is remotely true... |
That could be an exaggeration, yes.
On the other hand, there IS some truth in it, in that:
1) Around 500 - 200 BC, Chinese move southwards, displacing/assimilating the pre-Chinese tribes of the south. Many of them simply stay and become Chinese. Some begin to migrate.
2) The Austronesians were certainly among these tribes, and they move southwards, onto Taiwan.
3) Some stay in Taiwan (surviving as the "Taiwanese Aborigines"), others cross over to Philippines, and from there, much of Indonesia/Malaysia.
4) The original peoples of Indonesia and Malaysia were probably more like Papuans/Austr. Aborigines. They are displaced into the hills and jungles due to the superior agriculture of the Austronesians.
5) Austronesians acquire amazing navigational skills, move out towards Polynesia and become Hawaiians.
All these happened in a pretty short time (2 millennia). Basically, we have an ethnicity that moved from South China to Taiwan to Philippines to Indonesia to Polynesia. Of course some of them stayed, and contributed to a part of the South Chinese gene pool.
Hence, I was exaggerating, but it was mainly to illustrate how "monolithic" races like Arabs and Chinese are actually the result of assimilation.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
orange
|
 |
It doesn't matter what your name is!
Feb 2000
time: 00:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by ranskaldan
That could be an exaggeration, yes.
On the other hand, there IS some truth in it, in that:
1) Around 500 - 200 BC, Chinese move southwards, displacing/assimilating the pre-Chinese tribes of the south. Many of them simply stay and become Chinese. Some begin to migrate.
2) The Austronesians were certainly among these tribes, and they move southwards, onto Taiwan.
3) Some stay in Taiwan (surviving as the "Taiwanese Aborigines"), others cross over to Philippines, and from there, much of Indonesia/Malaysia.
4) The original peoples of Indonesia and Malaysia were probably more like Papuans/Austr. Aborigines. They are displaced into the hills and jungles due to the superior agriculture of the Austronesians.
5) Austronesians acquire amazing navigational skills, move out towards Polynesia and become Hawaiians.
All these happened in a pretty short time (2 millennia). Basically, we have an ethnicity that moved from South China to Taiwan to Philippines to Indonesia to Polynesia. Of course some of them stayed, and contributed to a part of the South Chinese gene pool.
Hence, I was exaggerating, but it was mainly to illustrate how "monolithic" races like Arabs and Chinese are actually the result of assimilation. |
Ok, i see what you're getting at, but are you sure your timetable isn't a bit skewed? That puts the settlement of polynesia around 1 - 500 AD? 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jethro83
|
|
Newcastle, Australia
Mar 2002
time: 15:23
|
|
2/5 Celtic (Irish background from my mother's side, Scottish background from my father's side)
1/5 Scandinavian (Danish background from my mother's side)
1/5 German (from my father's side)
1/5 Spanish (from my mother's side)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
The English are Celts. I've explained this so many times that I'm not going to try again.
I'm sure that the Finns and Hungarians are a mixture of orientals and indigenous caucasian peoples. The indigenous peoples undoubtedly outnumbered their oriental conquerers and now their genes predominate even if they're speaking a language derived from that of their former masters.
From an old "Firesign Theater" album:
UFO entertainer: "Where are you from soldier?"
Soldier: "Nairobi ma'm. Ain't we all?"
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lord Merciless
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
The English are Celts. I've explained this so many times that I'm not going to try again.
|
Because you are wrong. The Celts almost died off in that great plague along with their King Arthur. Today's English were the Anglo-Saxon invaders of back then.
But if you say Scots are Celtic, then I won't dispute with you.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Vagabond
Pardon my ignorance. But is Celtic ancestry = Irish ancestry? |
Strictly speaking Celtic = Irish, Scotch, Welsh, Briton, and Gaul.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Felch
|
 |
Germantown, Maryland
Sep 2001
time: 00:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Vagabond
Pardon my ignorance. But is Celtic ancestry = Irish ancestry? |
Celts were once found throughout most of Europe, from the British isles, to Greece, to Iberia, but now the only places people claim to be Celtic or Gaelic are Ireland, Wales, Scotland, England (as Doc said), France (Breton mostly), and assorted isolated communities, such as Galacia (IIRC) in northern Iberia. But yeah, mostly it means Irish.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:23.
Apolyton Time is 00:23. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
22-11-2002 03:01
) English and German. With some Irish flava for ya!
|