Where do the primitive white cultures live?

Originally posted by Aeons

Originally posted by UmbraSumus

Originally posted by Aeons
Well, a hundred years ago you would have said "Irish" or "Polish."

primitive white cultures ????

That's right. You should go read some of the things said about the Irish before this more "modern" time of people being all "white" now, and the US pushing the envelope on "white" culture that never existed. Truly enlightening.

Some of my Irish ancestors were shipped here as "White Niggers."

My father is only in his 50s, but even after the racial equity laws came about you could still find in Toronto signs that said, "Help Wanted. No Irish Need Apply." And that wasn't uncommon before that. You go read newspapers with help wanted ads, and you'll find the same thing advertized in them from a hundred years ago.

Yes - the Irish were indeed considered primitive trash. Prior to that, when people were selling slaves in the papers, the "white" slaves were Irish. And yes, if you go look at old newspapers, you will indeed find those advertizements in them.

edit on 2011/1/4 by Aeons because: (no reason given)

From what I understand the white slaves were about one fifth the value of the black slaves because the black slaves were easier to catch if they were to escape. Because the color of the whites allowed them to more easily blend in.

reply to post by getreadyalready


That would be very interesting to visit from an anthropological perspective, like a living museum.

Originally posted by alonzo730
I remember from history class that there were tribes living in what we call Germany. Wasn't Attila the Hun a tribal leader? I don't know if you would classify Laplanders as white people. I know they used to live fairly primitive lives by our standards. Has the snowmobile entered their realm as well? I think there are probably examples all around us. I think it's pretty cool that there might be tribal white people around.

I think so too. I think it would make a very interesting expedition to find a primitive undiscovered white tribe. I would imagine that the most likely place to search would be the extreme north of Europe, unless there are any unexplored regions of Europe today.

Read some Faulkner....

There aren't "tribal" cultures of whites in America but very primitive groups do still exist. Go to East TX, East Oklahoma, Appalachia, etc. Anywhere remote will have small groups or bands of "primitive" people. I've heard reports of a light skinned, blue eyed, tribe in South America.

They exist, just have to look.

To people who are like "whitey kept other people down so he could advance arrhahaggrahar", I say to you, and? May seem harsh but that's human nature. That's why we're the only advanced species on this planet; because humans kept other hominids down, killed them. We advance through brutality, it's the way of nature. Harsh, sure. True, absolutely.
I'm Native American, I was raised in a highly Native American populated area. Do I begrudge white people for wholesale genocide of my ancestors? Not really. I mean, I have central heat and I don't follow buffalo around the plains on cold winter nights like tonight. I think that civilization is built upon the foundation of the people it has slaughtered. It happens. Doesn't make it right, but it happens.

Originally posted by davespanners
Walmart?

ROTFLMAO! I was going to say various run down trailer parks but I laughed so hard when I read this I figured no need....

Originally posted by _Highlander_
There are no primitive white cultutres as you term it, not like the Africans or Australian Aborigines for example.

Go back around 50,000 + years or so and have a look at cromagnon man. The advent of white skin has only been a recent thing relativley speaking, and as I understand it current theorys holds white skin to be the result of our darker skinned cousing migrating and being exposed to less sun.

In short, go back more that 50,000 years or so and the white man did not exist. Not like he does today.

I've never really bought into the old 'if you wait long enough the collie dog will magically turn into a poodle' argument that some evolutionary pseudo scientists try to sell. I think it's more likely that white people were either always here, created here, or they were 'brought' here. And I suppose that would go for any other species or race that lacks a fossil record.

i have no idea what's going on here...hmm..white cultures? why white? why not ....black？sorry, i love you all.

Hmm... Trailer parks in america ? Or maybe herds of neds / chavs in uk ?

reply to post by EssenSieMich


what is " the white race " ????????????????????????

Originally posted by Throwback
They live in the Southern United States. For example, norther Louisiana, pretty much all of Texas, most of the Carolinas, etc, etc.

I don't know about what part of North LA your talking about.

Some people struggle with grammar, but they all drive cars, have cable or satellite television, own PCs, use the Internet, own cellphones (mostly Iphones), and buy their food and clothes at stores.

Sure there's lots of Bible thumpers, but even the churches have HD projectors, Internet broadcasts, use Powerpoint presentations, etc. Some of them even have Internet Cafes, one of the churches here even has a deal with Starbucks.
One thing I have to give the Bible thumpers credit for is that they love to read books and they give the bookstores and Amazon.com plenty of business. Yes they have Kindles too.

The only people I have seen around here that live in Third world conditions live in the inner city ghettoes in dilapidated shacks. Its like a little Detroit. Slowly the city has been bulldozing and relocating folks into better housing. I guess I should add they are not "white", but there are also very wealthy people here who are not "white" who live in multimillion dollar homes.

Now South LA, thats a whole other story. They still speak 18th century French in some parts.

Originally posted by MikeboydUS

Originally posted by Throwback
They live in the Southern United States. For example, norther Louisiana, pretty much all of Texas, most of the Carolinas, etc, etc.

I don't know about what part of North LA your talking about.

Some people struggle with grammar, but they all drive cars, have cable or satellite television, own PCs, use the Internet, own cellphones (mostly Iphones), and buy their food and clothes at stores.

Sure there's lots of Bible thumpers, but even the churches have HD projectors, Internet broadcasts, use Powerpoint presentations, etc. Some of them even have Internet Cafes, one of the churches here even has a deal with Starbucks.
One thing I have to give the Bible thumpers credit for is that they love to read books and they give the bookstores and Amazon.com plenty of business. Yes they have Kindles too.

The only people I have seen around here that live in Third world conditions live in the inner city ghettoes in dilapidated shacks. Its like a little Detroit. Slowly the city has been bulldozing and relocating folks into better housing. I guess I should add they are not "white", but there are also very wealthy people here who are not "white" who live in multimillion dollar homes.

Now South LA, thats a whole other story. They still speak 18th century French in some parts.

A lot of Siberia and some people in southern US, Alaska,
Still hunter gathering with tribes and such.

reply to post by Segador


The only tribes running around in the US are Native Americans and even the vast majority of them drive cars and use cell phones. The most "primitive" of them do live in Alaska, but they use any modern technology the government gives them.

The only real large primitive socities, as no cars, electricity, plumbing, are the Amish. They choose to live like that. They still read and write though. They are also skilled carpenters, smiths and farmers.

To me a real primitive hunter gatherer would be unable to read, write, or even farm.

It's kinda a niave question. The way culture are broken down scientifically are domestic scale culture (tribal), Political scale (kingstate), and commercial scale, (corporate state).
Once you observe the meaning of those cultures the term "primitive" becomes cultural relativism or ethno centric. The "primitive" cultures have their opinions of us too. Usually including words like barbarous in their culture.

reply to post by EssenSieMich


Ever seen a southern trailer park or WWE wrestling fans??

Theres your primitive white culture.

Originally posted by VonDoomen
reply to post by EssenSieMich

 

Ever seen a southern trailer park or WWE wrestling fans??

Theres your primitive white culture.

There are a ton of WWE smarks, especially Japanese and Canadians, who would argue otherwise.

reply to post by Aeons

hey come on ,i'm irish and you've really hurt my feelings..sorry i haven't time for a longer reply but me and my donkey have to go and cut some turf ha ha.

Interesting question "Where do the primitive white cultures live?"

To answer that first we would have to know what is meant by "white" , do we mean white, white like the English or not so white like Mediterranean or even darker like south Americans or perhaps some Indio-European races?

My idea of primitive are those peoples who don't even now have agriculture or know how to farm, likewise haven't developed any building skills (live in twig houses or mud huts), also the inability to do even the simplest of things like dig a well for water....my answer to the question would be nowhere i.e. there are no white races in existence like that for thousands of years.

Somebody mentioned that the Europeans were in the right place at the right time....Huh! what's that supposed to mean? The UK has a cold and wet climate which was much harsher to life then other warmer climates and yet that's where the industrial revolution took place. In actual fact if you find primitive peoples today you will usually find that their dwelling places are amongst the most rich in terms of natural resources (which is why white people have a keen interest in those places!)

I tend to think the whites in general did not have continued primitive cultures like in deep Africa, or south America, or some parts of Asia, because people's are different, genetics, brain development, not that one is better or worse, just some are more inclined to certain things more than others. One could say whites were more adventerous, organized, industrious, in that they colonized, they set up governments, systems of trade, inventions, etc. Not that it makes them better, just perhaps better at certain things. Like creating civiliations, and I know today's PC extremism is all anti-white and revised history, but I think it's obvious fact that the established european based/founded nations is where all the immigrants want to move to. I don't see hordes of white Norwegians wanting to migrate to Somalia. Though this thread is about whites, I personally think in terms of civiliation and modern achievement, the Asians in many ways surpass the whites.

Originally posted by NadaCambia

Originally posted by JohhnyBGood

I see that the idea of 'white guilt' has been firmly embedded as axiomatic in many of the respondants here - not at all surprising considering that the whole history writing and publishing business was hijacked and taken over early last century........

Really? Why don't you highlight these examples of white guilt, because oddly enough, nobody else sees it.

Well here is what the first page holds - I guess you are not too hot on reading comprehension, no surprise really because your entire life you have been fed a diet of propaganda, designed not to educate or inform you but to socially engineer your attitudes into being a more compliant NWO serf! - as the link I posted will have shown you had you had the intellectual curiousty to read it.

with my very brief knowledge of history I would take a guess at it being because the "white man" was the race that suppressed others into servitude & slavery thus keeping other race's cultures back while we progressed.

Perhaps because us 'whites' are more war-like in sociological nature, less attuned to physical nature, lovers of comfort even to the detriment of 'others,' have accumulated the wealth of our conquests, and are totally self-absorbed in consumerism and as such we gravitate toward civilization?

What do you mean by primitive? Some might say those of us living in a culture based on consumerism and materialism are pretty darn primitive, while those living in cultures focused on family and taking only what one needs are way more civilized.

the primitive white cultures destroyed the ancient world for its resources, and gave very little back, if you have any doubts you can ask the millions that died in the Americas, the millions that died in India, and the millions dying in Africa, cause the barbarians just want to keep craping in golden outhouses...

........................

Now let’s go to the words of Norman. Dodd, as he described these events before our cameras in 1982. He said: This group of twenty historians eventually formed the nucleus of the American Historical Association. Then toward the end of the 1920’s the Endowment grants to the American Historical Association $400,000 [a huge amount of money in those days] for a study of history in a manner that points to what this country can look forward to in the future. That culminates in a seven-volume study, the last volume of which is a summary of the contents of the other six. And the essence of the last volume is, the future of this country belongs to collectivism, administered with characteristic American efficiency

So they gathered a list of young men who were seeking their doctorate degrees. They
interviewed them, analyzed their attitudes, and chose the twenty they thought were best
suited for their purpose. They sent them to London for a briefing. (In a moment I will
explain why London is so significant.) At this meeting, they were told what would be
expected if and when they win the doctorates they were seeking. They were told they would
have to view history, write history, and teach history from the perspective that collectivism
was a positive force in the world and was the wave of the future. In other words, in the guise
of analyzing history, they would create history by conditioning future generations to accept
collectivism as desirable and inevitable.


THE BIRTH OF PROGRESSIVE EDUCATION
Under the orchestrating baton of Nicholas Butler, President of Columbia University
and President of the Carnegie Endowment, an organization was formed in 1884 called The
American Historical Association. This then created a series of controlled groups, called
Committees, each of which focused on a particular segment of the overall educational
mission. After these had published their recommendations, the Carnegie Fund created
another controlled group in 1929 called The Commission on the Social Studies, which
attracted to its membership an impressive list of academic personalities, including the
Superintendant of Schools in Washington, D.C., the Director of the American Geological
Society of New York, the President of Radcliff College, the Dean of the Graduate School at
the University of Minnesota, the head of the Institute for the Study of Law at John Hopkins
University, and eleven professors of history at such prestigious institutions as Columbia
University and the Universities of Chicago, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Other
institutions that provided staff services or facilitated its work in other ways included
Harvard, Stanford, Smith College, and the Universities of Iowa, North Carolina and West
Virginia. The Commission was funded by a $340,000 grant from the Carnegie Corporation
– at a time when $5,000 was an excellent annual salary for a college professor
www.freedomforceinternational.org...

reply to post by tom502


Dear god really? We are all privy to opinion but that is just crazy like the post above you. Dig wells? Carpentry?
There is a science out there called anthropology. It's either physical or cultural. Both apply here. First of genetic differences are miniscule. In fact the largest genetic difference in the human race is between australlian aborigine and Central Africans. They actual way "civilization" came about was the hoarding of resources by a group of elites. It's called political scale culture and it can be observed from pre European Hawaii to Europe. A group of Elites lead by a king decides the recourses are his or hers and then establishes a chain of command or pecking order. In most modern culture a commercial scale culture, corporations hoard resources and sell them back to you using your wages as a commodity. Both of those things can be observed as animalistic pack animal behavior. It can be argued that the philosophy of domestic scale culture is elevated. Where as it is egalitarian. The resources belong to everyone and are not sold or hoarded.

As far as "primitive" the word is somewhat ethnocentric. From a tribal percpective primitive is seen as a culture that "poops where it eats" or wipes out the local ecosystem. The first part meaning poisoning the drinking water. Sustainability is a philosophy and the main short sighted modern belief is that it is not a choice but do to underdeveloped culture. Completely false. Many of these cultures have advanced knowledge of ecology, herbalogy, local astronomy, and subsitance farming, and weather. Many tribes use "permaculture" which has been mistaken for a lack of farming. The other note is while civilizations come and go domestic scale culture lasts tens of thousands of years for the very reason of sustainability and population control. They have an advanced knowledge of how many people the environment can sustain.

Tribes are also in control of their domestic daily lives which we are not. We must sell our labor to survive which means doing others bidding and loosing control of our domestic lives.

Just wanted to point out the situation from a scientific perspective.