Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Turkey best stay the feth out of the EU, it's not the European and Almost European Union. If Turkey is allowed in then soon everyone will be calling Turkey a country in Europe and then I will explode in rage as only people saying that countries are part of one continent when I think they're part of another continent can cause me to do.

It's almost as bad as the people who think something is more green than yellow when it's very clearly more yellow than green.

Technically Turkey is often considered to lie both in Europe and the Middle East, since a little bit of the country is on the other side of the Bosphorus. So you're kinda saying that Turkey is all yellow when there's clearly some green in the mix.

Sorry if that triggers your "Turkey rage". Weirdo.

ShumaGorath wrote:

whatwhat wrote:Whites only?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh no wait I get it, because that 60 or so percent of the EU consisting of latin and slavic people doesn't count, fair one.

nice fail

Since when were slavic people



And spaniards



Not white?

Or did europe somehow crash into South America when I wasn't looking?

That's right because the latin race onlyu existed once they left europe for south america, again nice fail. Also nice selective choice of white looking latin and slavic people, let me counteract that bs with some of my own.

whatwhat wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

whatwhat wrote:Whites only?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh no wait I get it, because that 60 or so percent of the EU consisting of latin and slavic people doesn't count, fair one.

nice fail

Since when were slavic people



And spaniards



Not white?

Or did europe somehow crash into South America when I wasn't looking?

That's right because the latin race onlyu existed once they left europe for south america, again nice fail. Also nice selective choice of white looking latin and slavic people, let me counteract that bs with some of my own.

Thats like saying europe is asian because of the British colonies. You don't get to steal ethnicities just because you had a cultural interaction with them a century ago. That doesn't stop europe and all it's member states from being disproportionately white.

Are you gaking me? You do know the latin race wasn't actually in south america before this so called "cultural interaction." They emigrated from europe dummy.

Settle down lads, i want people to get back to talking about how much Turkey sucks!

whatwhat wrote:Are you gaking me? You do know the latin race wasn't actually in south america before this so called "cultural interaction." They emigrated from europe dummy.

And are now white, same with the slavic race. The only remaining non white "latino" ethnicity is in south america and several island nations. A skin color isn't a heritage, it's a color.

mattyrm wrote:Settle down lads, i want people to get back to talking about how much Turkey sucks!

We're still on topic. Shuma here is trying to claim the issue is a white vs non-white when and apears to believe crossing turkeys geographic broders into the Eu is like teleporting from ethiopia into 1943 berlin.

Whats more he also seems to think the hispanic populations of South America were already present when Europe discovered them 500 or so years ago. And all spanish/portugese/greek/italian people have stark white skin. I suppose that is a bit off topic.

We're still on topic. Shuma here is trying to claim the issue is a white vs non-white when and apears to believe crossing turkeys geographic broders into the Eu is like teleporting from ethiopia into 1943 berlin.

I made a snide whites only comment, I never even mentioned Turkeys ethnicity.

Whats more he also seems to think the hispanic populations of South America were already present when Europe discovered them 500 or so years ago.

No, but what is commonly referred to as hispanic and latino is the eventual culmination of those civilizations, and not the minor genetic impact the spanish left in south america.

And all spanish/portugese/greek/italian people have stark white skin. I suppose that is a bit off topic.

Well, racial profiles boil down pretty quickly. Caucasian white, Latino, Asian, Black, mid eastern and then regional specifics (such as native american or north chinese). Given the intention of the original comment, yes, they are effectively all white. It's what checkbox they would hit on the college application.

Ketara wrote: I highly doubt that the EU's future rests entirely on the integration of a country as backward as Turkey

The very fact that you consider Turkey to be backwards is indicative of your strategic failings. Never let feelings get in the way of sense. Integrating Turkey keeps them away from Russia, and the US; ensuring that EU has access to oil and natural gas. Integrating Russia is the other option, but it isn't one the Russian like.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

whatwhat wrote:Are you gaking me? You do know the latin race wasn't actually in south america before this so called "cultural interaction." They emigrated from europe dummy.

Latino is a new world term. It has no relevance in Europe. Spaniards are not Latino.

ShumaGorath wrote:the minor genetic impact the spanish left in south america

If anything was ever worthy of me posting one of those many internet pics with the words "epic fail" in capitals captioned underneath, that was it. Chance missed I guess.

dogma wrote:

whatwhat wrote:Are you gaking me? You do know the latin race wasn't actually in south america before this so called "cultural interaction." They emigrated from europe dummy.

Latino is a new world term. It has no relevance in Europe. Spaniards are not Latino.

No they just emigrated then bacame an entirely new race with a different skin colour according to Shuma. The terminoligy is not the issue.

whatwhat wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:the minor genetic impact the spanish left in south america

If anything was ever worthy of me posting one of those many internet pics with the words "epic fail" in capitals captioned underneath, that was it. Chance missed I guess.

Comparative populations, the spanish influence on the genetic legacy of most of south america is quite small. Or is africa white because of the same colonialism?

No, white colonialism in africa is not a fair comparison. White colonialsim in north america, that's a fair comparison.

whatwhat wrote:No, white colonialism in africa is not a fair comparison. White colonialsim in north america, that's a fair comparison.

Not particularly. North American colonialism continued to modern times, was vastly more intense, and involved both the intentional spreading of fatal diseases and outright massacre of the native populations. By contrast south american colonials was a resource gathering affair that fractiously ended far sooner, and involved significantly less native culling by percentage of total population.

The very fact that you consider Turkey to be backwards is indicative of your strategic failings. Never let feelings get in the way of sense. Integrating Turkey keeps them away from Russia, and the US; ensuring that EU has access to oil and natural gas. Integrating Russia is the other option, but it isn't one the Russian like.

You may call them 'strategic failings', but I personally think this is down to some kind of Cold War complex you have. In current society, keeping people out of the arms of 'the great Russian Bear', isn't so much a priority any more. The Soviet Union went bankrupt and disbanded, remember? That's far from saying they're not a threat any more, but the world does not have to be drawn in such black white viewpoints(.e.g., them or us).

Turkey would be an economic strain on the EU. Period. They have several diplomatic problems, several human rights problems, are barely even qualified to count as being geographically located in Europe, and are not a military power. In other words, the cons far outweigh the pros. What you may call 'strategic failings', I call 'common sense'.

ShumaGorath wrote:

whatwhat wrote:No, white colonialism in africa is not a fair comparison. White colonialsim in north america, that's a fair comparison.

Not particularly. North American colonialism continued to modern times, was vastly more intense, and involved both the intentional spreading of fatal diseases and outright massacre of the native populations. By contrast south american colonials was a resource gathering affair that fractiously ended far sooner, and involved significantly less native culling by percentage of total population.

You seriously believe that the native populations of south america are the major gentic ancestry of south america? You just keep digging that hole further don't you.

1hadhq wrote:
You don't need to demonstrate your ignorance.

Then how would you know that I happened to be ignorant? That's not a very good insult.

1hadhq wrote:
You know the old saying with the first stone to be thrown...

Yes, and its a nice little heuristic, but it doesn't really speak to anything with certainty. There is no necessary reference to the superiority of the speaker in any insult. The fact that most people believe that is one of the greatest crimes against logic in the entire world.

1hadhq wrote:
I did not invent Germany? Wrong. I did. Obviously. And certainly.
Why should i not do so?

The people who 'invented' Germany had an idea that you are now paying for by simply being German.

1hadhq wrote:
Back to your inverted question, since you seem unwilling to answer it as is.

I did answer it, whether or not you accept the answer is your issue. Really, I don't even know why you're asking me that particular question, as I am not arguing that the presence of Turkey in EU is beneficial to the US. In fact, I'm arguing that it isn't beneficial to the US. You don't seem to be reading my posts.

1hadhq wrote:
The price of failing to admit turkey to EU is 0.

Disputed when considering opportunity cost. If you're just going to argue by analogy I really have no interest in continuing this, as it is entirely fruitless.

1hadhq wrote:
They are just not yet ready to join and if you read carefully I didn't say they should never be
a part of the EU ( as a trade bloc ).

The EU isn't a trade bloc. Trade bloc don't have a universal currency.

1hadhq wrote:
So why should those few already financing the EU also carry the burden of Turkey?

Turkey is a burden? Again, that is a deficiency of analytical skill.

1hadhq wrote:
I don't see there any benefits in the next 100 years to come for the actual members of the EU if Turkey joins.

Natural gas pipelines, and influence denial. Those are immediate benefits.

1hadhq wrote:
the EU had to play moderator ( which didn't work in ex-yugoslavia ) on several spots and I think the "unity" of the europeans
in any foreign or military policy is not a secret...

It worked very well in Yugoslavia, actually. The EU will have to play moderator no matter what, as the Middle East is critical to your future; being as you happen to be connected to it by land and economics.

1hadhq wrote:
Nobody is interested in enlarging the EU just to have longer borders to control or in the conflicts you get into when a countrys
law is influenced by different tradition and religion. Don't forget the long arm of the eurocrats. Youre nowhere safe.

Clearly some people are interested in it, as there are people who support Turkish membership.

1hadhq wrote:
Their economics will help us....not. And they are already associated to the EU.

If the EU is just a trade bloc, then how is it that an economically associated Turkey is not a member?

In any case, never underestimate the value of cheap labor.

1hadhq wrote:
The military? Had a lot of support with extra cheap wargear....from us europeans.

Turkey has the largest standing army of any possible European nation. Quantity isn't everything, but it is still an important thing.

1hadhq wrote:
Funny how you throw in your unfounded analysis and your nonexistant identification.
I must have missed your post where you explained your reasoning and your sources.
Its to be found on page ? of this thread if you please point me to?

The reasoning is implicit in my words; having meanings as they do. I have no sources, nor do I need them, as I any incision on my part has been the result of logic. I could start formalizing that process if you want, but most people don't understand formal logic.

1hadhq wrote:
No I am assuming your approaching this from a "we iz da best and you funny little people from the old continent should listen to us
or else... but we don't care anyway so maybe not" position which I find wierd.

So you're assuming I'm approaching this from a nationalist perspective. That is a mistake. Assumptions are always mistakes in argument.

1hadhq wrote:

mattyrm wrote:
Here is a thought Barrack, how about you make them another State of the USA and keep your fething nose out?

Exactly. Make them another state and make their problems yours, not ours.
The turks tend to be overconfident and aren't well liked with their neighbours, also got massive problems to integrate in mid-european
culture.


But Russia is part of europe, geographical and cultural.

ok as this is my first post on here i will involve all my political and geographical ideas!

Britian is not part of europeit is an independant island state yet it is still part of the EU (or new united states of europe) so why cant another non-european country be involved also how long do you think they will be in the eu when they realise brussels will be making their laws im sure the turkish people dont want straight bannaneas either

whatwhat wrote:
No they just emigrated then bacame an entirely new race with a different skin colour according to Shuma. The terminoligy is not the issue.

That's what happened. Latino and Chicano people are new world phenomena that resulted from the interbreeding of Europeans and native peoples.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

whatwhat wrote:
You seriously believe that the native populations of south america are the major gentic ancestry of south america? You just keep digging that hole further don't you.

You're the one digging the hole. The conquistadors et al were in the vast minority when they came to the South America, and they didn't simply kill everyone.

No, just chicano I'm afraid. Latino people are of primarily European descent. In fact one of the primary reasons people define themselves as chicano is to diferentiate themseleves as ethnicly different from european descended latinos.

whatwhat wrote:No, just chicano I'm afraid. Latino people are of primarily European descent.

Wow. You really don't know anything about South American history. This is pretty flooring.

No you don't. Heres just one example .... "The Chelonian population is rather homogeneous with 95.4 % of its population having European ancestors" http://www.studentsgoabroad.com/en/internships/internship-in-chile/general-information.html

Figures are similar for most south american countries.

whatwhat wrote:No, just chicano I'm afraid. Latino people are of primarily European descent. In fact one of the primary reasons people define themselves as chicano is to diferentiate themseleves as ethnicly different from european descended latinos.

Chicano people are defined as such because they're half European, or were raised in the United States. Latino people are not European at all. This is stuff you learn in high school Spanish class. Seriously.

whatwhat wrote:No you don't. Heres just one example .... "The Chelonian population is rather homogeneous with 95.4 % of its population having European ancestors" http://www.studentsgoabroad.com/en/internships/internship-in-chile/general-information.html

Figures are similar for most south american countries.

Having European ancestors does not make a group of people European, it simply means they have European ancestors; indicating that some of their progenitors were European. Some, not all.

dogma wrote:Having European ancestors does make a group of people European, it simply means they have European ancestors; indicating that some of their progenitors were European. Some, not all.

what are you talking about. 94.5% european ancestry means 94.5% of them have european ancestors, i.e. not natives.

whatwhat wrote:
what are you talking about. 94.5% european ancestry means 94.5% of there ancestors were european, i.e. not natives.

No, it means 94.5% of the people surveyed had European ancestors. It does not comment on the shear volume of European ancestors, or where those ancestors were located in the family tree.

If you can't properly read a survey, then there is no reason to continue this.

wrong wording, edited my post.

Dogma do you even know what the argument is here or have you just chimed in to have a go at me once again.

It's like this. Shuma thinks all europeans are white. I pointed out latin europe to him. He then refused to believe and claimed I was making out half of europe to be like south america. I then told him a majority of south americans do descend from latin europe. He claims it's a minority. By your last post you seem to be arguing something completely different., which as usual is the just the opposite to everything I say.

I apologize, then.

Anyway, as soon as one European is introduced to the bloodline any succeeding members of that line will have European ancestors. The high percentage is likely the result of mass death for those who wouldn't integrate with arriving Europeans, but it doesn't indicate that the majority of the genetic history is of European origin. You could inquire as to those people who possess native ancestors, and probably come up with a similar number.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

whatwhat wrote:
Dogma do you even know what the argument is here or have you just chimed in to have a go at me once again.

You're arguing about the 'whiteness' of Europe, and that has turned into a debate over the 'whiteness' of the people living in South America. Which is itself the result of a dispute over whether or not Spaniards can be considered 'white'.

dogma wrote:Anyway, as soon as one European is introduced to the bloodline any succeeding members of that line will have European ancestors. The high percentage is likely the result of mass death for those who wouldn't integrate with arriving Europeans, but it doesn't indicate that the majority of the genetic history is of European origin. You could inquire as to those people who possess native ancestors, and probably come up with a similar number.

perhaps it would be more clear what that statistic means when you include the rest of it's paragraph then...

"The Chelonian population is rather homogeneous with 95.4 % of its population having European ancestors. 4.6 % belong to indigenous groups"

Kind of clear to me that the line is saying that 94.5% are descended from european colonialists and the rest are indegenous.


Anyway besides it all, I uphold my stance that Shumas ideas, that the EU is a white only organistation and that europe had a "minor genetic impact" on south america, are total cock.

It's like this. Shuma thinks all europeans are white. I pointed out latin europe to him. He then refused to believe and claimed I was making out half of europe to be like south america.

Latin people are white. Latino people are of heavy south american genetic influence. It's really not that hard, the terms are entirely different.

Anyway besides it all, I uphold my stance that Shumas ideas, that the EU is a white only organistation and that europe had a "minor genetic impact" on south america, are total cock.

Except shared ancestry and the genetic impact of that ancestry are not intertwined concepts. My family has african blood in it. I am pretty damn white.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Anyway besides it all, I uphold my stance that Shumas ideas, that the EU is a white only organistation and that europe had a "minor genetic impact" on south america, are total cock.

Except shared ancestry and the genetic impact of that ancestry are not intertwined concepts. My family has african blood in it. I am pretty damn white.

What does that have to do with what you just quoted.

whatwhat wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Anyway besides it all, I uphold my stance that Shumas ideas, that the EU is a white only organistation and that europe had a "minor genetic impact" on south america, are total cock.

Except shared ancestry and the genetic impact of that ancestry are not intertwined concepts. My family has african blood in it. I am pretty damn white.

What does that have to do with what you just quoted.

Did you seriously ask that?