BoxRec

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

BAD INTENTIONS wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Bad intentions and Tunney would be an epic racist battle.

This comment is way off.
His world view is one that promotes dominance and war.

You're like in your racism, the rules are up for debate.

Unfair. I have stated numerous times race is a fake construction. I have clearly advocated for poor "whites".

I would accept "classist" because I do talk negatively about wealthy "blacks" who also profit from slavery.

You're just grouping everyone who has a problem with the race views in the US as the same thing.

BAD INTENTIONS wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

BAD INTENTIONS wrote: This comment is way off.
His world view is one that promotes dominance and war.

You're like in your racism, the rules are up for debate.

Unfair. I have stated numerous times race is a fake construction. I have clearly advocated for poor "whites".

I would accept "classist" because I do talk negatively about wealthy "blacks" who also profit from slavery.

You're just grouping everyone who has a problem with the race views in the US as the same thing.

No, I'm pointing out your often racist behavior. If you're not in real life as you are on the board, whatever.

ValMar wrote:

Counter-puncher wrote:

BAD INTENTIONS wrote: Agreed. I am 10000% certain what we called "wars" in many places were not what we would even call a gang fight today.

Europeans framed the world in a war perspective. Just like how many peoples around the world happened to be cannibals. Sad to see so many people turning their belief in high school history into a debate between right and left.

The reality of murder, rape and torture was introduced to your "peaceful white ancestors" by Roman invaders who raped and enslaved them. In fact, the majority of Europe controlled by the Romans regulated most of the common people (your ancestors) into a chattel slavery identical to the one "black" people were subjected to. This slavery lasted longer than the European/American African slavery


Also, the Vikings weren't savage brutes. They were there "barbarians" who were the resistance fighters against the "civilized Romans", a term that's such an oxymoron it's amazing how so many of you guys "on the right" promote so many brutal and anti-human ideals.
.

Lol your history is atrocious

Just for one, the romans didn't exist as an entity when the vikings were doing their thing, and the vikings were the most enthusiastic and prolific slavers in Europe (google the slave market in Dublin/Dyflin that they set up for example)

And the idea that the majority of people under Roman rule were slaves is utterly inaccurate

There is a very strong paradox connected with Vikings. So, ancient Vikings were extremly violent community. Right now, all countries where their descendants live are among the most tolerant countries world-wide.
During the Roman rule, only minority of people were slaves, and this period of history has nothing to do with American slavery.
I was born as a white. I did not choose my skin, and do not consider this as a benefit. I despise all forms of slavery, but I have to emphasize that my white ancestors had nothing with slavery. Nothing....
OMG, I am off topic, again...........

I'm fine with you talking history,you at least seem to have half a clue about it

I'll use Wikipedia for part 1.
Most people under Roman rule were slaves. Slavery was deeply connected to the Roman identity. This belief was one of the foundations of their society. Basically, their gods told them to dominate weaker people. Sounds familiar? Perhaps that explains the dominating nature Christianity later took under Roman rule.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_ancient_Rome

Secondly, the Vikings were the result of hundreds of years of dealing with Romans. Romans, unlike most empires, dominated people and erased their history amd culture. Sounds familiar? They also practiced wholesale slavery of dominated cities. Imagine if it were your daughter.

"Viking" people were reacting to an unnatural slaughter, and adapted extreme violence as survival. However, as someone else pointed out, without Roman pressure, they have reverted back into some of the most peaceful/progressive people in the world.

Also, Viking, as noted is a modern creation. I used the group as as identifier because it's a common group known to you. If you really want to be technical, the area that came to be Viking was never one culture, and had many groups and languages coexisting peacefully, just like the people of the Caribbean before domination.

Funny how a anti-"white" person like me, constantly praises the "whitest" people in the world. Maybe Saad my problem is just with US and UK based idiots. The type of idiot who constantly advances a violence based world view because they are part of the bullying group.

So, you're high school works history, which reinforces 1800 racism is a joke.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:No, I'm pointing out your often racist behavior. If you're not in real life as you are on the board, whatever.

Please tell me one instance.
You haven't admitted that my problem is with the rich, not even the poor "white" people voting for Trump, or advocating racist views.

I call these guys idiots, but you ignore I try to point them to the rich who are creating an abusive situation that leads to hate.

Sorry man, I grew up in a country where you can be shot by the government for being poor, especially if you are a poor Native, Black or Latino.

Equating me with Freedom is crazy. But you are a bully Saad. Perhaps who are very unhappy or you have serious issues with women. Your style of argument and general dismissiveness of people is childish. If you are intelligent, then make your points. I won't get mad. We can even do it on private messages. But this type of baseless name calling is stupid.

I'm not interested in a discussion with you of that nature. You think I'm a bully and I think you're a racist. Just like pac said, life goes on.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I'm not interested in a discussion with you of that nature. You think I'm a bully and I think you're a racist. Just like pac said, life goes on.

Just like Pac said ... Ha.
You shouldn't quote Pac.
Woulda called you a coward.

It's okay to think like an idiot.
I'm just as asking you to stop publically equating me an Freedom.

BAD INTENTIONS wrote:I'll use Wikipedia for part 1.
Most people under Roman rule were slaves. Slavery was deeply connected to the Roman identity. This belief was one of the foundations of their society. Basically, their gods told them to dominate weaker people. Sounds familiar? Perhaps that explains the dominating nature Christianity later took under Roman rule.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_ancient_Rome

Secondly, the Vikings were the result of hundreds of years of dealing with Romans.

The Romans had very little contact with Scandinavia, or any Viking precursors

More hilariously in the very wiki article you link, it makes an estimate that maybe 10-15% of people in the Roman Empire were slaves

You're so stupid you cite articles supposed to back up your claim that most romans were slaves when they actually totally refute it

BAD INTENTIONS wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I'm not interested in a discussion with you of that nature. You think I'm a bully and I think you're a racist. Just like pac said, life goes on.

Just like Pac said ... Ha.
You shouldn't quote Pac.
Woulda called you a coward.

It's okay to think like an idiot.
I'm just as asking you to stop publically equating me an Freedom.

Nonsense, I grew up in Baltimore City. PAC lived there for a stretch. He'd be more likely to buy drugs from me than call me a coward and get his ass whipped. Youre thr one that chose to drag back up that old post.

Counter-puncher wrote:

BAD INTENTIONS wrote:I'll use Wikipedia for part 1.
Most people under Roman rule were slaves. Slavery was deeply connected to the Roman identity. This belief was one of the foundations of their society. Basically, their gods told them to dominate weaker people. Sounds familiar? Perhaps that explains the dominating nature Christianity later took under Roman rule.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_ancient_Rome

Secondly, the Vikings were the result of hundreds of years of dealing with Romans.

The Romans had very little contact with Scandinavia, or any Viking precursors

More hilariously in the very wiki article you link, it makes an estimate that maybe 10-15% of people in the Roman Empire were slaves

You're so stupid you cite articles supposed to back up your claim that most romans were slaves when they actually totally refute it

The people who became Viking didn't become Roman slaves. They got pushed north, but were constantly dealing with Roman pressure. It's like saying Rome had little contact with Scotland.

I gave you the article as context to the brutality of Roman slavery, only matched by the enslavement of "blacks". This type of domination changes world views. I don't know how far you took your study of conventional history, but I took it pretty far. I know what I'm saying sounds crazy, because it did to me.

Try this, conventional history is full of Roman lies and exaggerations, similar to how the US tries to frame history now. There are many things occurring today that American citizens are CLUELESS about. 10-15% is just like the lowball estimates of slavery, similar to lowball estimates of the population of the "New World".

I would love to introduce you to ph.D professors in Ivy league schools who can elaborate in more details than a guy typing on his phone.

Just saying, I know your history. What's wrong with you at least giving a fair listen to mine? That's supported by the same type of ph.D people who you listen to.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

BAD INTENTIONS wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I'm not interested in a discussion with you of that nature. You think I'm a bully and I think you're a racist. Just like pac said, life goes on.

Just like Pac said ... Ha.
You shouldn't quote Pac.
Woulda called you a coward.

It's okay to think like an idiot.
I'm just as asking you to stop publically equating me an Freedom.

Nonsense, I grew up in Baltimore City. PAC lived there for a stretch. He'd be more likely to buy drugs from me than call me a coward and get his ass whipped. Youre thr one that chose to drag back up that old post.

Pac was a Panther, deeply rooted in race theory.
If I'm racist, then Pac was David Duke.

You're a gangster now? Hahahah.

Just please stop equating me with Freedom.
I'm clearly stating I don't like it, and I think it's not even close to accurate.

But you wanna bully me instead ... but I guess I know why now, because you're a thug. Hahahahaha

Sorry man. Get off Boxrec, the po po coming.

BAD INTENTIONS wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

BAD INTENTIONS wrote: Just like Pac said ... Ha.
You shouldn't quote Pac.
Woulda called you a coward.

It's okay to think like an idiot.
I'm just as asking you to stop publically equating me an Freedom.

Nonsense, I grew up in Baltimore City. PAC lived there for a stretch. He'd be more likely to buy drugs from me than call me a coward and get his ass whipped. Youre thr one that chose to drag back up that old post.

Pac was a Panther, deeply rooted in race theory.
If I'm racist, then Pac was David Duke.

You're a gangster now? Hahahah.

Just please stop equating me with Freedom.
I'm clearly stating I don't like it, and I think it's not even close to accurate.

But you wanna bully me instead ... but I guess I know why now, because you're a thug. Hahahahaha

Sorry man. Get off Boxrec, the po po coming.

You don't know dick about me, stop crying about it and stfu if it bothers you. No, I'm a businessman now. I was formerly a 'gangster'. Now go argue with Tunney about which one of you has more unfounded hate in your heart. I'm betting on you.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

BAD INTENTIONS wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote: Nonsense, I grew up in Baltimore City. PAC lived there for a stretch. He'd be more likely to buy drugs from me than call me a coward and get his ass whipped. Youre thr one that chose to drag back up that old post.

Pac was a Panther, deeply rooted in race theory.
If I'm racist, then Pac was David Duke.

You're a gangster now? Hahahah.

Just please stop equating me with Freedom.
I'm clearly stating I don't like it, and I think it's not even close to accurate.

But you wanna bully me instead ... but I guess I know why now, because you're a thug. Hahahahaha

Sorry man. Get off Boxrec, the po po coming.

You don't know dick about me, stop crying about it and stfu if it bothers you. No, I'm a businessman now. I was formerly a 'gangster'. Now go argue with Tunney about which one of you has more unfounded hate in your heart. I'm betting on you.

A gangster who used to get drunk and scream at Boxrec dudes for hours. Shut up nigga.

You're a bully. You make little bitch comments like a HS student just to get under people skin. And if u are a east coast gangster from the 80s or 90s you would know better.

BAD INTENTIONS wrote:

Counter-puncher wrote:

BAD INTENTIONS wrote:I'll use Wikipedia for part 1.
Most people under Roman rule were slaves. Slavery was deeply connected to the Roman identity. This belief was one of the foundations of their society. Basically, their gods told them to dominate weaker people. Sounds familiar? Perhaps that explains the dominating nature Christianity later took under Roman rule.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_ancient_Rome

Secondly, the Vikings were the result of hundreds of years of dealing with Romans.

The Romans had very little contact with Scandinavia, or any Viking precursors

More hilariously in the very wiki article you link, it makes an estimate that maybe 10-15% of people in the Roman Empire were slaves

You're so stupid you cite articles supposed to back up your claim that most romans were slaves when they actually totally refute it

The people who became Viking didn't become Roman slaves. They got pushed north

Nobody ever got pushed north into Scandinavia by Roman pressure. There was contact in the sense that Angles and some other tribes from modern day Denmark ended up serving as Roman mercenaries but your idea that the Scandinavian kingdoms ended up as they did, when their expansion began 400 years after the Roman Empire fell, as a result of Roman pressure,is historically illiterate.

The historical pressure was actually *into* and *onto* the Roman Empire by the hundreds of thousands of Germanics who ended up invading destabilising destroying and ultimately inheriting the Roman Empire, Franks Goths Vandals and so on

Your link between Viking ferocity and the romans is utterly historically innacurate, like I already proved your claim most romans were slaves (10-15% = less than most) is bogus

BAD INTENTIONS wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

BAD INTENTIONS wrote: Pac was a Panther, deeply rooted in race theory.
If I'm racist, then Pac was David Duke.

You're a gangster now? Hahahah.

Just please stop equating me with Freedom.
I'm clearly stating I don't like it, and I think it's not even close to accurate.

But you wanna bully me instead ... but I guess I know why now, because you're a thug. Hahahahaha

Sorry man. Get off Boxrec, the po po coming.

You don't know dick about me, stop crying about it and stfu if it bothers you. No, I'm a businessman now. I was formerly a 'gangster'. Now go argue with Tunney about which one of you has more unfounded hate in your heart. I'm betting on you.

A gangster who used to get drunk and scream at Boxrec dudes for hours. Shut up nigga.

You're a bully. You make little bitch comments like a HS student just to get under people skin. And if u are a east coast gangster from the 80s or 90s you would know better.

Awww, now you're upset. Freedom isn't nearly as prone to hissy fits as you are. I certainly know better than to waste my time with a keyboard warrior like you. And FYI, in your other argument that has nothing to do with Boxing(as you complain in other threads about Boxing discussions) you're conversing with a scholar far out of your wiki quoting league. You do bring the unintentional humor. I'll give you that. Much funnier than Freedom. Anyway, once again, I'm done with you. Go hate some other white man.

Counter-puncher wrote:

BAD INTENTIONS wrote:

Counter-puncher wrote:
The Romans had very little contact with Scandinavia, or any Viking precursors

More hilariously in the very wiki article you link, it makes an estimate that maybe 10-15% of people in the Roman Empire were slaves

You're so stupid you cite articles supposed to back up your claim that most romans were slaves when they actually totally refute it

The people who became Viking didn't become Roman slaves. They got pushed north

Nobody ever got pushed north into Scandinavia by Roman pressure. There was contact in the sense that Angles and some other tribes from modern day Denmark ended up serving as Roman mercenaries but your idea that the Scandinavian kingdoms ended up as they did, when their expansion began 400 years after the Roman Empire fell, as a result of Roman pressure,is historically illiterate.

The historical pressure was actually *into* and *onto* the Roman Empire by the hundreds of thousands of Germanics who ended up invading destabilising destroying and ultimately inheriting the Roman Empire, Franks Goths Vandals and so on

Your link between Viking ferocity and the romans is utterly historically innacurate, like I already proved your claim most romans were slaves (10-15% = less than most) is bogus

Roman Empire fell? Or did they just become the Church? There are thousands of articles making/proving that link.

I'm sorry, I 100% disagree with modern theories surrounding "Germanic tribes". I think there is sufficient evidence that they were in fact being terrorized by Romans and then Christians afterwards.

I think that most of the defense of Romans come from a modern sense of identification with them. After dominating and raping your ancestors, everyone somehow became "white".

Similar to how descendents of former slaves would call the group of rich guys who took control of America, the "founding fathers" or "sons of liberty". Ha.

I like this discussion. When I call you stupid, I mean it like guys. Thanks.

BAD INTENTIONS wrote:

Counter-puncher wrote:

BAD INTENTIONS wrote: The people who became Viking didn't become Roman slaves. They got pushed north

Nobody ever got pushed north into Scandinavia by Roman pressure. There was contact in the sense that Angles and some other tribes from modern day Denmark ended up serving as Roman mercenaries but your idea that the Scandinavian kingdoms ended up as they did, when their expansion began 400 years after the Roman Empire fell, as a result of Roman pressure,is historically illiterate.

The historical pressure was actually *into* and *onto* the Roman Empire by the hundreds of thousands of Germanics who ended up invading destabilising destroying and ultimately inheriting the Roman Empire, Franks Goths Vandals and so on

Your link between Viking ferocity and the romans is utterly historically innacurate, like I already proved your claim most romans were slaves (10-15% = less than most) is bogus

Roman Empire fell? Or did they just become the Church? There are thousands of articles making/proving that link.

I'm sorry, I 100% disagree with modern theories surrounding "Germanic tribes". I think there is sufficient evidence that they were in fact being terrorized by Romans and then Christians afterwards.
.

No there isn't, cite some of it. I dare you.

You're an idiot. The FRANKS were Germans who ended up ruling France, how did they do that without kicking the Roman Empire out of it? The romans in Italy were ruled by Germanic Goths and then Lombards for about 300 years 500-800. The VANDALS and VISIGOTHS ended up ruling North Africa and Spain, again by usurping the Roman rule there.

Read Peter Heathers work. Or Adrian Goldsworthy.

Counter-puncher wrote:

BAD INTENTIONS wrote:

Counter-puncher wrote:
Nobody ever got pushed north into Scandinavia by Roman pressure. There was contact in the sense that Angles and some other tribes from modern day Denmark ended up serving as Roman mercenaries but your idea that the Scandinavian kingdoms ended up as they did, when their expansion began 400 years after the Roman Empire fell, as a result of Roman pressure,is historically illiterate.

The historical pressure was actually *into* and *onto* the Roman Empire by the hundreds of thousands of Germanics who ended up invading destabilising destroying and ultimately inheriting the Roman Empire, Franks Goths Vandals and so on

Your link between Viking ferocity and the romans is utterly historically innacurate, like I already proved your claim most romans were slaves (10-15% = less than most) is bogus

Roman Empire fell? Or did they just become the Church? There are thousands of articles making/proving that link.

I'm sorry, I 100% disagree with modern theories surrounding "Germanic tribes". I think there is sufficient evidence that they were in fact being terrorized by Romans and then Christians afterwards.
.

No there isn't, cite some of it. I dare you.

You're an idiot. The FRANKS were Germans who ended up ruling France, how did they do that without kicking the Roman Empire out of it? The romans in Italy were ruled by Germanic Goths and then Lombards for about 300 years 500-800. The VANDALS and VISIGOTHS ended up ruling North Africa and Spain, again by usurping the Roman rule there.

Read Peter Heathers work. Or Adrian Goldsworthy.

It would be like citing mainstream US media for stories about Israel's abuse of Palestinians. But I'll get some.

I'm an idiot because my POV is based on the admission, "the winner writes history". In Peru today, every native person would tell you they're Inca. Simply not true. Just the result of people who had their history stolen assimilating to the most dominant group left.

There were too many different people in the France/Italy area to label them as a nation of Franks or whatever the dominant group called themselves. Eventually though, people became these one things because the other identities got erased. Similar to former slaves being American.

In the context of winners creating fairy tale history. Europe's ruling families were people who had little to no ties to the actual people. They were normally wealthy foreign agents who would sell out the majority of the "their" people because they have economic ties to the abusive ruling class. Or they themselves are German, in the same way "white" people are now South African. See the wealthy sellouts in Scotland and Ireland as further examples.

I think you are creating too much of a seperation between the Roman Empire and the Catholic Christian church. All the other groups you stated were still Christian or became Christian soon after.

... and how was Christianity spread? Possibly the most violent and raping spread of any idea ever. Or do you think people were just begging to be baptized before an inquisition style torture and rape.

Come off the textbooks and fairy tales. College is mostly a lie. Think and use relevant examples from modern history to make inferences. If not, you do realize you are believing what rich people tell you.

And that has never been smart. Ever. Ever. Ever.

BAD INTENTIONS wrote:

Counter-puncher wrote:

BAD INTENTIONS wrote: The people who became Viking didn't become Roman slaves. They got pushed north

Nobody ever got pushed north into Scandinavia by Roman pressure. There was contact in the sense that Angles and some other tribes from modern day Denmark ended up serving as Roman mercenaries but your idea that the Scandinavian kingdoms ended up as they did, when their expansion began 400 years after the Roman Empire fell, as a result of Roman pressure,is historically illiterate.

The historical pressure was actually *into* and *onto* the Roman Empire by the hundreds of thousands of Germanics who ended up invading destabilising destroying and ultimately inheriting the Roman Empire, Franks Goths Vandals and so on

Your link between Viking ferocity and the romans is utterly historically innacurate, like I already proved your claim most romans were slaves (10-15% = less than most) is bogus

Roman Empire fell? Or did they just become the Church? There are thousands of articles making/proving that link.

I'm sorry, I 100% disagree with modern theories surrounding "Germanic tribes". I think there is sufficient evidence that they were in fact being terrorized by Romans and then Christians afterwards.

I think that most of the defense of Romans come from a modern sense of identification with them. After dominating and raping your ancestors, everyone somehow became "white".

Similar to how descendents of former slaves would call the group of rich guys who took control of America, the "founding fathers" or "sons of liberty". Ha.

I like this discussion. When I call you stupid, I mean it like guys. Thanks.

Conventional history is full of lies, usually, here, in Europe, in USA, or China or India. Everywhere or almost everywhere. Anyway, Wikipedia is not (and will never be) reliable source concerning history. Theories you're speaking about (relation between Romans and Scandinavians) are pretty strange, and this is the first time I've heard about . Of course, I will never believe in this kind of theories, but I think that it is important only for academic community. What is important ? The clear attitude against hatred caused by race/nation/ethnos/religion. This is the beggining and the end .

ValMar wrote:

BAD INTENTIONS wrote:

Counter-puncher wrote:
Nobody ever got pushed north into Scandinavia by Roman pressure. There was contact in the sense that Angles and some other tribes from modern day Denmark ended up serving as Roman mercenaries but your idea that the Scandinavian kingdoms ended up as they did, when their expansion began 400 years after the Roman Empire fell, as a result of Roman pressure,is historically illiterate.

The historical pressure was actually *into* and *onto* the Roman Empire by the hundreds of thousands of Germanics who ended up invading destabilising destroying and ultimately inheriting the Roman Empire, Franks Goths Vandals and so on

Your link between Viking ferocity and the romans is utterly historically innacurate, like I already proved your claim most romans were slaves (10-15% = less than most) is bogus

Roman Empire fell? Or did they just become the Church? There are thousands of articles making/proving that link.

I'm sorry, I 100% disagree with modern theories surrounding "Germanic tribes". I think there is sufficient evidence that they were in fact being terrorized by Romans and then Christians afterwards.

I think that most of the defense of Romans come from a modern sense of identification with them. After dominating and raping your ancestors, everyone somehow became "white".

Similar to how descendents of former slaves would call the group of rich guys who took control of America, the "founding fathers" or "sons of liberty". Ha.

I like this discussion. When I call you stupid, I mean it like guys. Thanks.

Conventional history is full of lies, usually, here, in Europe, in USA, or China or India. Everywhere or almost everywhere. Anyway, Wikipedia is not (and will never be) reliable source concerning history. Theories you're speaking about (relation between Romans and Scandinavians) are pretty strange, and this is the first time I've heard about . Of course, I will never believe in this kind of theories, but I think that it is important only for academic community. What is important ? The clear attitude against hatred caused by race/nation/ethnos/religion. This is the beggining and the end .

Of course I agree. Been preaching that forever here.
However, the discussion is more than just academic.
In the US, it's used to justify racism and a host of other bull.

I'm glad you found an alternative theory to conventional history interesting. I COULD BE WRONG!!!! but I know the conventional history is definitely wrong.

But there bottom line is, down with all the grouping and separations. But how can you get that point across when people are sure the Franks definitely lived somewhere 1600 years ago? Can't ever move on from this problem if people think their history is true and not some political manipulation.

BAD INTENTIONS wrote:

ValMar wrote:

BAD INTENTIONS wrote: Roman Empire fell? Or did they just become the Church? There are thousands of articles making/proving that link.

I'm sorry, I 100% disagree with modern theories surrounding "Germanic tribes". I think there is sufficient evidence that they were in fact being terrorized by Romans and then Christians afterwards.

I think that most of the defense of Romans come from a modern sense of identification with them. After dominating and raping your ancestors, everyone somehow became "white".

Similar to how descendents of former slaves would call the group of rich guys who took control of America, the "founding fathers" or "sons of liberty". Ha.

I like this discussion. When I call you stupid, I mean it like guys. Thanks.

Conventional history is full of lies, usually, here, in Europe, in USA, or China or India. Everywhere or almost everywhere. Anyway, Wikipedia is not (and will never be) reliable source concerning history. Theories you're speaking about (relation between Romans and Scandinavians) are pretty strange, and this is the first time I've heard about . Of course, I will never believe in this kind of theories, but I think that it is important only for academic community. What is important ? The clear attitude against hatred caused by race/nation/ethnos/religion. This is the beggining and the end .

Of course I agree. Been preaching that forever here.
However, the discussion is more than just academic.
In the US, it's used to justify racism and a host of other bull.

I'm glad you found an alternative theory to conventional history interesting. I COULD BE WRONG!!!! but I know the conventional history is definitely wrong.

But there bottom line is, down with all the grouping and separations. But how can you get that point across when people are sure the Franks definitely lived somewhere 1600 years ago? Can't ever move on from this problem if people think their history is true and not some political manipulation.

Political manipulation exists in democracy as same as in dictatorship. I am fed up of conventional history, here in Europe -----Always, always, always the historians (at least three quarters of them) attempt to minimize/diminish/avoid bad deeds done in the name of their community, and, of course to maximize/enlarge alleged or real shaits done by others.

ValMar wrote: Political manipulation exists in democracy as same as in dictatorship. I am fed up of conventional history, here in Europe -----Always, always, always the historians (at least three quarters of them) attempt to minimize/diminish/avoid bad deeds done in the name of their community, and, of course to maximize/enlarge alleged or real shaits done by others.

In the US, we default to "winners write history". And I'm talking at the university level.

Just an example ...
European explorers went around the world calling hundreds, if not thousands of peoples, cannibals.

In the Caribbean, where no evidence of the practice existed, Americans still teach it and it remains in the vast majority of texts. When challenged that they are teaching a biased history without evidence, over 10+ professors in the one of the US's most liberal (left) colleges responds "history is written by the winners".

So when dudes challenge me with their "evidence" I laugh. But it's really sad to see people not being able to see past a basic system of lies, manipulation and seperation.

Are there many in Europe who think like you?
What part of Europe are you specifically talking about?

Sorry I get excited when someone wants to challenge traditional school knowledge.

BAD INTENTIONS wrote:

ValMar wrote: Political manipulation exists in democracy as same as in dictatorship. I am fed up of conventional history, here in Europe -----Always, always, always the historians (at least three quarters of them) attempt to minimize/diminish/avoid bad deeds done in the name of their community, and, of course to maximize/enlarge alleged or real shaits done by others.

In the US, we default to "winners write history". And I'm talking at the university level.

Just an example ...
European explorers went around the world calling hundreds, if not thousands of peoples, cannibals.

In the Caribbean, where no evidence of the practice existed, Americans still teach it and it remains in the vast majority of texts. When challenged that they are teaching a biased history without evidence, over 10+ professors in the one of the US's most liberal (left) colleges responds "history is written by the winners".

So when dudes challenge me with their "evidence" I laugh. But it's really sad to see people not being able to see past a basic system of lies, manipulation and seperation.

Are there many in Europe who think like you?
What part of Europe are you specifically talking about?

Sorry I get excited when someone wants to challenge traditional school knowledge.

I am not alone, but people on the"other side" are majority, without any doubts. I am talking about the whole Europe, from wealthy Scandinavian countries to Balkan. There are a lot of differences, but political/historical manipulation really exists, having a strong influence on everyday life.

ValMar wrote:

BAD INTENTIONS wrote:

ValMar wrote: Political manipulation exists in democracy as same as in dictatorship. I am fed up of conventional history, here in Europe -----Always, always, always the historians (at least three quarters of them) attempt to minimize/diminish/avoid bad deeds done in the name of their community, and, of course to maximize/enlarge alleged or real shaits done by others.

In the US, we default to "winners write history". And I'm talking at the university level.

Just an example ...
European explorers went around the world calling hundreds, if not thousands of peoples, cannibals.

In the Caribbean, where no evidence of the practice existed, Americans still teach it and it remains in the vast majority of texts. When challenged that they are teaching a biased history without evidence, over 10+ professors in the one of the US's most liberal (left) colleges responds "history is written by the winners".

So when dudes challenge me with their "evidence" I laugh. But it's really sad to see people not being able to see past a basic system of lies, manipulation and seperation.

Are there many in Europe who think like you?
What part of Europe are you specifically talking about?

Sorry I get excited when someone wants to challenge traditional school knowledge.

I am not alone, but people on the"other side" are majority, without any doubts. I am talking about the whole Europe, from wealthy Scandinavian countries to Balkan. There are a lot of differences, but political/historical manipulation really exists, having a strong influence on everyday life.

There is also the idea that Native American "Indians" had tribal wars going on almost continuously and that Europeans actually "restored order" and stopped the constant warfare and killing when they forced natives onto reservations. There's the teaching that war and conquering other nations is part of human nature and happened throughout history -- and was part of Darwin's evolutionary "natural selection" and survival of the fittest.

People in the south were taught that slavery and subjugation are totally natural because of the hierarchy of races -- with Caucasians, and especially Anglo Saxons at the pinnacle and everyone else being child-like, without vision and purpose, and in the need of their guidance and authority.

Kalan wrote:

ValMar wrote:

BAD INTENTIONS wrote: In the US, we default to "winners write history". And I'm talking at the university level.

Just an example ...
European explorers went around the world calling hundreds, if not thousands of peoples, cannibals.

In the Caribbean, where no evidence of the practice existed, Americans still teach it and it remains in the vast majority of texts. When challenged that they are teaching a biased history without evidence, over 10+ professors in the one of the US's most liberal (left) colleges responds "history is written by the winners".

So when dudes challenge me with their "evidence" I laugh. But it's really sad to see people not being able to see past a basic system of lies, manipulation and seperation.

Are there many in Europe who think like you?
What part of Europe are you specifically talking about?

Sorry I get excited when someone wants to challenge traditional school knowledge.

I am not alone, but people on the"other side" are majority, without any doubts. I am talking about the whole Europe, from wealthy Scandinavian countries to Balkan. There are a lot of differences, but political/historical manipulation really exists, having a strong influence on everyday life.

There is also the idea that Native American "Indians" had tribal wars going on almost continuously and that Europeans actually "restored order" and stopped the constant warfare and killing when they forced natives onto reservations. There's the teaching that war and conquering other nations is part of human nature and happened throughout history -- and was part of Darwin's evolutionary "natural selection" and survival of the fittest.

People in the south were taught that slavery and subjugation are totally natural because of the hierarchy of races -- with Caucasians, and especially Anglo Saxons at the pinnacle and everyone else being child-like, without vision and purpose, and in the need of their guidance and authority.

I realize this will shake up your shallow world view, but 5 CENTURIES before white European slavers even arrived in Africa, Arab Muslims were enslaving black Africans. Even worse, Arab Muslims STILL ENSLAVE BLACK AFRICANS IN THE 21ST CENTURY:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vin5kzhHyxQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znsLAtNO40w

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XzThnFyjG0