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.

My family are Irish and Scottish, my great grandad shot a man and got hung. How cool is that?

whatwhat wrote:
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.

That's not clear at all. It could relate to self-identification, which means that the percentages relate to culture, rather than genetics. It could also indicate that there are very few people who have a purely indigenous heritage, which does not indicate that those with a European heritage are purely European.

whatwhat 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.

You're partially wrong on both points.

My great grandad killed a man and he was the last man to be hung in my home county, how awesome is that?

dogma wrote:You're partially wrong on both points.

but mostly right.

whatwhat wrote:

dogma wrote:You're partially wrong on both points.

but mostly right.

In the same way that a child calling a firetruck an apple is mostly correct because of the color red.

No, in the same way somebody with clear facts is mostly correct because the facts he is basing his arguments on are facts.

whatwhat wrote:No, in the same way somebody with clear facts is mostly correct because the facts he is basing his arguments on are facts.

Both the firetruck and the apple are red. These are facts. The case is solved.

Ketara wrote:
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).

Who said anything about us or them? I said something about Russia, which is what the nation is called, and the EU, which is what that federated territory is called. The very fact that there are such labels implies the existence of distinct cultural groups. If you don't believe that, then you also believe that international politics are identical to domestic politics.

Ketara wrote:
Turkey would be an economic strain on the EU. Period.

Not period, disputed prediction. Whether or not you want to confuse fact with prediction is your own business, but don't try to pass one off as the other.

Ketara wrote:
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'.

Common sense? Not a real thing. All you're doing is referencing your own predilections. Strategic failure.

Diplomatic problems? Human rights issues? Yes, those are both problems, but they can both be rectified. Do you think I'm calling for immediate membership? I never referenced any sort of time table. More strategic failings. Never assume in an argument.

They are a military power. Their military is larger than any of those currently in the EU. They also have extensive experience fighting insurgencies, and instituting regime change. That doesn't even enter into military issues of geography.

ShumaGorath wrote:

whatwhat wrote:No, in the same way somebody with clear facts is mostly correct because the facts he is basing his arguments on are facts.

Both the firetruck and the apple are red. These are facts. The case is solved.

35.63% of south americans are descent of european colonials according to the cia factbook. these are facts. Case solved.

This whole argument on the ancestry of Latin America is pointless, mostly because both sides are making blanket statements about the region as a whole. Some nations, especially Argentina, Chile, Paraguay and Uruguay are most definitively white/European in their ancestry. Argentina for example kicked out or killed almost all non-Euros in the 19th Cent and basically imported a completely European middle and lower class from Europe. Other countries have a much more varied mix, but it is inarguable that the vast majority of Latinos are very European. Of course some are more then others, but the fact remains. Most of the nations in northern South America and Central America had a very, very high population of Criollos (those of pure European descent), and a very low population of Peninsulares (Spaniards/Europeans) and Mestizos (Mixed/Indigenous). Its just the way it was, and still is. Things are harder to identify now because of the various revolutions, wars, and political crises of the past century, not to mention the tanning of skin becoming fashionable.

ShumaGorath wrote:That doesn't stop europe and all it's member states from being disproportionately white.

This tread would by now have officially crossed the FAIL threshold were it not for this gem.

whatwhat wrote:
but mostly right.

The EU is culturally white, which makes it averse to integrating non-white people. It does happen, but it causes strain in those instances.

Europeans had a significant genetic impact on South America, but the Latino people that resulted are not Spanish, or white.

You are incorrect along the lines of purpose that you drew, but tangentially correct in questioning Shuma's overstatements; which he conventionally makes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

whatwhat wrote:
35.63% of south americans are descent of european colonials according to the cia factbook. these are facts. Case solved.

Again, descent does not mean the same.

Remember, the purpose of this tangent was to prove that Spanish people are not white by association to the non-white people of South America.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
Mestizos

Damn it! That's the word I was looking for when I used the word Chicano. Replace all my usages of Chicano with Mestizo.

dogma wrote:You are incorrect along the lines of purpose that you drew, but tangentially correct in questioning Shuma's overstatements; which he conventionally makes.

Claiming that europeans had a minor impact on south american genetics and comparing it's impact to that of the european impact on african genetics is quite a shot more than an overstatement.

whatwhat wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

whatwhat wrote:No, in the same way somebody with clear facts is mostly correct because the facts he is basing his arguments on are facts.

Both the firetruck and the apple are red. These are facts. The case is solved.

35.63% of south americans are descent of european colonials according to the cia factbook. these are facts. Case solved.

Every single person on the planet is descended from Rameses the third. Genetic heritage has no indication of race. Spanish people are white, latino people are non european denizens of south and north america. Having spanish people in europe has no influence on the south american genetic history inside of europe. Ergo the european latin population (something significantly different from the latino populations of the americas) is white.

Case solved. You're wrong on almost every point you made. You are factually correct on the supporting evidence for much of your posting, but when you say that the moon has an air atmosphere because americans traveled to the moon with an air atmosphere it doesn't mean that THE MOON HAS AN AIR ATMOSPHERE. You can be factually correct with your evidence while being incorrect in your points.

Europeans had a significant genetic impact on South America,

What do you classify as a significant genetic impact?

dogma wrote:Damn it! That's the word I was looking for when I used the word Chicano. Replace all my usages of Chicano with Mestizo.

Your welcome!

ShumaGorath wrote:

whatwhat wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

whatwhat wrote:No, in the same way somebody with clear facts is mostly correct because the facts he is basing his arguments on are facts.

Both the firetruck and the apple are red. These are facts. The case is solved.

35.63% of south americans are descent of european colonials according to the cia factbook. these are facts. Case solved.

Every single person on the planet is descended from Rameses the third. Genetic heritage has no indication of race. Spanish people are white, latino people are non european denizens of south and north america. Having spanish people in europe has no influence on the south american genetic history inside of europe. Ergo the european latin population (something significantly different from the latino populations of the americas) is white.

Case solved. You're wrong on almost every point you made. You are factually correct on the supporting evidence for much of your posting, but when you say that the moon has an air atmosphere because americans traveled to the moon with an air atmosphere it doesn't mean that THE MOON HAS AN AIR ATMOSPHERE. You can be factually correct with your evidence while being incorrect in your points.

Europeans had a significant genetic impact on South America,

What do you classify as a significant genetic impact?

How about 35.63% of the entire population of a continent. Yes that's the point I was posting that figure in response to. You just twisted it to look like It was on the point of whites in eurpoe then rambled on about much less than nothing.

How about 35.63% of the entire population of a continent. Yes that's the point I was posting that figure in response to. You just twisted it to look like It was on the point of whites in eurpoe then rambled on about much less than nothing.

Actually I was saying your facts are utterly irrelevant to the discussion you had started after I made the whites club comment. Which it is. How exactly is it relevant? It doesn't have a significant impact on their genetically imbued racial types, and if we're going over heritages every single person on the planet is descended from The Prophet Muhammad, Gilgamesh, and Ghengis Kahn. Is Europe now full of Asians and Middle Easterners?

whatwhat wrote:
Claiming that europeans had a minor impact on south american genetics and comparing it's impact to that of the european impact on african genetics is quite a shot more than an overstatement.

No it isn't, not to my mind. But that's a matter of opinion. Though I agree that the comparison to Africa was not well founded.

The wat I see it is that currently Turkey are not fit to enter the EU. Regardless of the geographical situation. To enter the EU Turkey would have to meet a number of criteria set by the current member states, the most obvious stumbling block will be the recognition of Cyprus. Just as the Argentinians see the Falklands/Malvinas as theirs the Turkish see Cyprus as theirs, so rather than the European states not wanting Turkey it may be that the Turkish people decide against it.

As things stand there are a number of positives and negatives to Turkish inclusion. The negatives are huge cultural differences, a large proportion of poor citizens and poor relations with neighbouring countries.
The positives are the inclusion of a moderate Muslim state, greater political influence in the area and the bolstering of the EU's military power.

Personaly I would rather they did not join at the present time. There are already member states who really should not have been admited and are little more than a drain on the collective resources of the larger more affluent states. If the EU is to have a sold and beneficial future for all members then it needs to sort out what it has already without looking to expend in the name of promoting cultural diversity.

Given the current economic turmoil in Greece, Spain and Portugal, not to mention the problems of East Germany, the EU may at the moment have bitten off more than it can chew in terms of economic integration.

Heh. Dogma, I have to say, you give the old noggin a workout I don't usually have. Most people don't usually use the whole misdirection, change the issue, put the other guy on the defensive style of debating. I haven't run across it really since I took philosophy at college. That's a compliment by the way.

However! Having had experience with this style, I know how to respond likewise!. So my friend, let us proceed....

dogma wrote:

Ketara wrote:
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).

Who said anything about us or them? I said something about Russia, which is what the nation is called, and the EU, which is what that federated territory is called. The very fact that there are such labels implies the existence of distinct cultural groups. If you don't believe that, then you also believe that international politics are identical to domestic politics.

You said ' Integrating Turkey keeps them away from Russia'. This implies that keeping Turkey away from Russia is a desirable result. Why is that desirable? Are we still in the Cold War era? To expand the power of the EU as a superstate? I have no wish for the EU to evolve into that, and I know I'm far from alone in that sentiment. From that standpoint, if you are of the idea that integrating Turkey will help the burgeoning bureaucracy expand its powers even further, I can quite easily oppose it on those grounds alone as a bad idea. You might disagree, but as a non-citizen of a member-state, I believe that your perception is skewed, and your empirical data less valuable than mine. You can disagree, but that's just your point of view and entirely subjective.

Ketara wrote:
Turkey would be an economic strain on the EU. Period.

Not period, disputed prediction. Whether or not you want to confuse fact with prediction is your own business, but don't try to pass one off as the other.

It is a statistical fact that Turkey has a relative underdeveloped economy in comparison to the economies of the classic EU members. Not only that, they have an incredibly high birthrate. You can talk all you like about a labour pool, but this presupposes the idea that the EU is a) a cohesive entity in need of such a workforce, and b) we are keen to produce things locally(that is to say Europe). The recent induction of many other economically unstable European nations has already provided a large workforce far in excess of the number of labourers required, especially in a recession. As we generally order everything from China, production is not an issue here.

The EU is already under financial strain aiding the development of other newer members, and subsidising less well off nations such as Ireland. Turkey is not a first world country, and as such, would require financial assistance, putting an even larger strain on the EU's finances. This is a fact, not a prediction. If Turkey were to join, it would require large amounts of financial investment that would put a strain on the EU economy. Not only that, but the incorporation of it's massive workforce, and the granting of free travel in Europe would result in even more exacerberated problems than we saw when the Poles started to mgrate to England-there simply aren't the jobs available. Hvaing a huge workforce is all very well and good, but if there's not labour for them, its a tad pointless.

Ketara wrote:
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'.

Common sense? Not a real thing. All you're doing is referencing your own predilections. Strategic failure.

Diplomatic problems? Human rights issues? Yes, those are both problems, but they can both be rectified. Do you think I'm calling for immediate membership? I never referenced any sort of time table. More strategic failings. Never assume in an argument.

No, but considering the discussion was on Turkey joining the EU now, it is to be assumed you are talking about the same time period as the rest of us. Otherwise its pointless you even being here. You are the one who is attempting to pick holes in my point of view, to turn around and say you're not even talking about the same thing as me is tantamount to saying that you never had any idea of exactly what was discussed in the first place. Nice try at a diversion though.

They are a military power. Their military is larger than any of those currently in the EU. They also have extensive experience fighting insurgencies, and instituting regime change. That doesn't even enter into military issues of geography.

Let me clarify this. They are a military power in the sense that they have a military. In terms of global influence, actual technological level, and strike capability, they are not a military power. They do not have up to date weapons systems, nuclear devices, etc. You say we want them on board for their numbers in case of war, but then I ask you-a war with whom? The US? China? Russia? In the case of any of these powers starting squabbling with each other, nuclear armageddon is likely two days away, and how many conscripts Turkey can put in the field is a moot point.

I'd like to conclude this by saying that the onus is on you here to disprove me with fact. So far, virtually everything you've said has been subjective, and poorly developed. It has relied entirely on me feeling I have to respond to your allegations that my facts/opinion is rubbish. I refute this now, and say that the burden of the proof is now on you to lay down acts showing that the integration of Turkey to the EU, in modern day terms, is a desirable thing.

P.S. If you're about to claim that was never what you meant to say/imply, your very debate with me has been from one of that viewpoint. To refute it now would be to seriously undermine your own position.

Ketara wrote:So far, virtually everything you've said has been subjective, and poorly developed.

That's pretty clear - to term the argument thus far as lightweight would be a commendation. Puts me in mind of someone rejected from the Territorials on the grounds of paranoia. Accordingly I don't really understand the reason for the gushing compliments in your first paragraph.

Ketara wrote:
You said ' Integrating Turkey keeps them away from Russia'. This implies that keeping Turkey away from Russia is a desirable result. Why is that desirable? Are we still in the Cold War era? To expand the power of the EU as a superstate?

No, to prevent Russia from attaining power which might be used to affect the EU negatively. Power is a zero sum game, but it isn't implicitly something which expands or contracts. It can also deny.

Ketara wrote:
I have no wish for the EU to evolve into that, and I know I'm far from alone in that sentiment. From that standpoint, if you are of the idea that integrating Turkey will help the burgeoning bureaucracy expand its powers even further, I can quite easily oppose it on those grounds alone as a bad idea. You might disagree, but as a non-citizen of a member-state, I believe that your perception is skewed, and your empirical data less valuable than mine. You can disagree, but that's just your point of view and entirely subjective.

Well, if its empirical it isn't subjective, but that's beside the point.

I've not addressed bureaucracy at all, though an ineffective Europe does benefit the US.

Ketara wrote:
It is a statistical fact that Turkey has a relative underdeveloped economy in comparison to the economies of the classic EU members. Not only that, they have an incredibly high birthrate. You can talk all you like about a labour pool, but this presupposes the idea that the EU is a) a cohesive entity in need of such a workforce, and b) we are keen to produce things locally(that is to say Europe). The recent induction of many other economically unstable European nations has already provided a large workforce far in excess of the number of labourers required, especially in a recession. As we generally order everything from China, production is not an issue here.

Not yet. China's economy progressing as it has, the ability to purchase will diminish in the future. The price of oil will also rise; increasing the cost of shipping. Local production is something every state should always look in to.

I understand the absence of necessity in my argument, I use that argument constantly. However, when dealing in prediction necessity is only relevant when establishing a premise.

Ketara wrote:
The EU is already under financial strain aiding the development of other newer members, and subsidising less well off nations such as Ireland. Turkey is not a first world country, and as such, would require financial assistance, putting an even larger strain on the EU's finances. This is a fact, not a prediction. If Turkey were to join, it would require large amounts of financial investment that would put a strain on the EU economy. Not only that, but the incorporation of it's massive workforce, and the granting of free travel in Europe would result in even more exacerberated problems than we saw when the Poles started to mgrate to England-there simply aren't the jobs available. Hvaing a huge workforce is all very well and good, but if there's not labour for them, its a tad pointless.

You are right in identifying this as the largest barrier to Turkish membership. Keep in mind that I'm not arguing that Turkey should be admitted now, only that membership should be considered desirable.

Ketara wrote:
No, but considering the discussion was on Turkey joining the EU now, it is to be assumed you are talking about the same time period as the rest of us.

The rest of you agreed upon a period to discuss?

Ketara wrote:
Otherwise its pointless you even being here. You are the one who is attempting to pick holes in my point of view, to turn around and say you're not even talking about the same thing as me is tantamount to saying that you never had any idea of exactly what was discussed in the first place. Nice try at a diversion though.

Not a diversion so much as an honest query from someone assessing a schizophrenic conversation. Many people jumped into this argument, and no one set out the founding premises. This is common on the internet; people carrying assumptions from other, unrelated, conversations. But it should be pointed out as foolish when it occurs.

Ketara wrote:
Let me clarify this. They are a military power in the sense that they have a military. In terms of global influence, actual technological level, and strike capability, they are not a military power.

In those terms there are only 3 military powers in the world: France, Britain, and the US.

Ketara wrote:
They do not have up to date weapons systems, nuclear devices, etc.

Actually, they are nuclear capable; thanks to the NATO nuclear sharing program. Also, they do have up to date weapon systems; being major contributors to the JSF program, and continue to spend significant amounts of money on modernization.

Ketara wrote:
You say we want them on board for their numbers in case of war, but then I ask you-a war with whom? The US? China? Russia? In the case of any of these powers starting squabbling with each other, nuclear armageddon is likely two days away, and how many conscripts Turkey can put in the field is a moot point.

You're thinking in a Cold War mode. War happens outside major state conflicts. As with all developed nations, the EU's conflicts will primarily relate to otherwise backwater regions. Central Asia will be particularly interesting.

Ketara wrote:
I'd like to conclude this by saying that the onus is on you here to disprove me with fact. So far, virtually everything you've said has been subjective, and poorly developed. It has relied entirely on me feeling I have to respond to your allegations that my facts/opinion is rubbish. I refute this now, and say that the burden of the proof is now on you to lay down acts showing that the integration of Turkey to the EU, in modern day terms, is a desirable thing.

There is no fact in this conversation. Any fact is tangential to the statement as we are dealing in prediction. The closest point of reference I can find is Meternich Europe, but even that fails to encompass the scale of future endeavors. Such is policy debate.

Ketara wrote:
P.S. If you're about to claim that was never what you meant to say/imply, your very debate with me has been from one of that viewpoint. To refute it now would be to seriously undermine your own position.

It wouldn't undermine anything, it would simply clarify. You might feel that it undermines something, but feelings are irrelevant.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jazz is for Losers wrote:
That's pretty clear - to term the argument thus far as lightweight would be a commendation.

Why would I ever present real scholarship in a forum where I would not credited?

I'm just trying to get over the idea that slavs are considered self-evidently white. I knew race and racism are really weird things that'll change entirely over the course of a generation, but when you actually see it in front of you it's still pretty odd.

sebster wrote:I'm just trying to get over the idea that slavs are considered self-evidently white. I knew race and racism are really weird things that'll change entirely over the course of a generation, but when you actually see it in front of you it's still pretty odd.

It's probably due to a lack of direct interaction. I only see that they have white skin, thus they are white. Social paradigms are unimportant from afar.

Yes, the EU consists of predominantly white nations. It's not exactly policy though, is it? It's not like there are loads of predominantly black nations in europe that the EU is purposely excluding. The Arab League isn't exactly overflowing with white nations.

Europe is fairly white, therefore the EU is fairly white.


Shocker.

Albatross wrote:Yes, the EU consists of predominantly white nations. It's not exactly policy though, is it? It's not like there are loads of predominantly black nations in europe that the EU is purposely excluding. The Arab League isn't exactly overflowing with white nations.

Europe is fairly white, therefore the EU is fairly white.


Shocker.

Ding Ding Ding! Albatross wins the thread by pointing out why Shuma's flawed statement that the EU is a "whites only" club is bad trolling.

JEB_Stuart wrote:

Albatross wrote:Yes, the EU consists of predominantly white nations. It's not exactly policy though, is it? It's not like there are loads of predominantly black nations in europe that the EU is purposely excluding. The Arab League isn't exactly overflowing with white nations.

Europe is fairly white, therefore the EU is fairly white.


Shocker.

Ding Ding Ding! Albatross wins the thread by pointing out why Shuma's flawed statement that the EU is a "whites only" club is bad trolling.

I'm pretty sure I've admitted that it was a subtanceless and snide comment like three times now.

Hey! You don't get to have a monopoly on snide!

ShumaGorath wrote:It's probably due to a lack of direct interaction. I only see that they have white skin, thus they are white. Social paradigms are unimportant from afar.

I was thinking less about social paradigms and more about the racism targetted at Slavs under Nazi Germany. Ignoring deaths from war and famine, the Nazis killed around 7 million Slavs, more or less for being Slavs. They were certainly considered a different, lesser race.

Thinking about this some more, it might not just be a generational thing but also a US/Europe thing. Just goes to show how racial groupings really do say nothing about the people being grouped, but a lot about the people doing the groupings.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Albatross wrote:Yes, the EU consists of predominantly white nations. It's not exactly policy though, is it? It's not like there are loads of predominantly black nations in europe that the EU is purposely excluding. The Arab League isn't exactly overflowing with white nations.

Europe is fairly white, therefore the EU is fairly white.


Shocker.

More to the point, one of the primary considerations of being considered 'white' is being a developed country, so you actually get this self-reinforcing cycle of perceived racism.

If the people of Spain looked as they did, but the country was stuck on the end of Africa and not the edge of Europe, we'd wouldn't call them white.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShumaGorath wrote:I'm pretty sure I've admitted that it was a subtanceless and snide comment like three times now.

But it's an interesting topic, you don't mind if we talk about it some more, do you?

Provided other people are interested in the same, that is.