Are Georgians and Armenians Europeans?

[Exeter]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

And yet, there is a strong argument for stating that what they did was to Judify Christianity. As I said, please remind me to come back to this issue over the weekend.

Can you elaborate on that. I would agree that there's a stronger support for seeing Judaism and Christianity as a cohesive group in the Protestant Anglo-Saxon world.

USA was founded upon the basis of a Calvinist Neo-Judaism, and pure Judaism.

Are you sure USA was founded on pure Judaism? It may have become associated with that in more modern times. Modern USA is under a great influence of neo-Conservatives who used to be Communists. A lof of these neo-cons are Jews.

Just a few lines above you've said that Protestantism "purified" Christianity, and under that assumption Protestantism would be a pure form (i.e. a true form) of Christianity.

I definitely don't think Protestantism is a pure (or true) form of Christianity. I was thinking of the Puritans (radical Protestants) who wanted to purify the English church from Roman Catholic practises.

What about comparing Austria and Bavaria instead of Ireland and Sicily?

You can do that too. Bavaria is indeed more traditional than North Germanic Europe. You can mention any lands inherited by Habsburg emperor Charles V. I mentioned Sicily because I still had that in my mind from a previous post in this thread.

[Ferran]

I think there are many factors to consider when talking about "Armenian Europeaness", factors such as the level of adaptation when they go to other European nation, how they feel (Europeans or not), common problems shared with the rest of Europe, their resistance against non-European religions, geographical situation, historical collaborations with other European nations (Greece), as well as race, values and culture. Although it must be an harmonic communion between all, therefore you can find nations which are "geographicaly European" (Albania, Bosniak Bosnia...), but just that, and nations with European racial majority (United States) but which clearly fail at the vast majority of requiriments above exposed. So well, under that scheme we "could" say that Armenia is more European than it is not.

And about "how Armenians look"... I think System of a Down members could also be a good aproximation to the average Armenian population.

[Gil]

Agrippa: warrior societies are always fated to become "trader" or "merchant" societies, simply because wars, and those who fight in them, don't last forever and though war can be lucrative in the end the majority wants peace. A good example is Japan. For centuries a warrior society was enforced and it achieved it's climax during the Tokugawa Shogunate. Unfortunately it all ended due to...commerce.
Now, one can argue that warrior societies are "better" than merchant societies...but what does one gives us that the other doesn't? I think that overall the difference is that warrior societies divide itself into castes (based on birth) while merchant societies divide itself into classes (birth/money based). In a caste society it is very hard for an entrepeneur, for the "smart yet not of noble birth" to succeed, while merchant societies allow for the cunning (and sometimes the wicked) to achieve the same success and the nobleman. IMHO, a mix of both would be my utopia, a meritocratic caste society.....but that is sheer speculation

Cheers

[Agrippa]

Originally Posted by Manji

Agrippa: warrior societies are always fated to become "trader" or "merchant" societies, simply because wars, and those who fight in them, don't last forever and though war can be lucrative in the end the majority wants peace. A good example is Japan. For centuries a warrior society was enforced and it achieved it's climax during the Tokugawa Shogunate. Unfortunately it all ended due to...commerce.
Now, one can argue that warrior societies are "better" than merchant societies...but what does one gives us that the other doesn't? I think that overall the difference is that warrior societies divide itself into castes (based on birth) while merchant societies divide itself into classes (birth/money based). In a caste society it is very hard for an entrepeneur, for the "smart yet not of noble birth" to succeed, while merchant societies allow for the cunning (and sometimes the wicked) to achieve the same success and the nobleman. IMHO, a mix of both would be my utopia, a meritocratic caste society.....but that is sheer speculation

Cheers

Its true, even the Bronze Age IE at their peak were merchants too, nothing wrong with that, I was probably writing not clear enough. What I mean is the dominance in the group, whats finally more important - the heroic idea or the trade. Both can come together or there can be a dominance of one way of thinking.

And of course a "warrior" will be another merchant than a greedy urban merchant without other perspectives.

[Franc]

Originally Posted by Exeter

There is indeed no one single European culture. There are some regions that share more with each other than others. What does Sicily have in common with Scotland? I can agree with your argument there.

However, I think the question whether they are European or not is a racial, and not a cultural one. Maybe the person who started the thread can make it clear if we should take a racial and/or a cultural stand?

What happens on other forums is absolutely irrelevant in threads like these. Please read the rules. - BM

[Aistulf]

I voted "no." Some Armenians, thouhg excluding the 'diasporans', might be related to us - racially and lingually - but they're still not European. Caucasoid, perhaps, but not European.

Also, I yet have to hear anybody tell me what meta-ethnical group Armenians belong to, I've heard so many varying theories as far as their origins go; "Galacn"/Ancient Anatolian Celts, Græco-Macedonian, Thracian, etc. ..

Originally Posted by Curious

The term Aryan only denotes Indo-European languages and origins, it has nothing to do with race and culture.

It does, but it's mostly a synonyme for Eastern Caucasoid ethnic and lingual groups nowadays.

Kurds, Iranians, Tajiks, and Hazaras are Aryan, but they're not a part of Europe.

Hungarians, Finns, Estonians, and Basques aren't Aryan but they're a part of Europe.

Hungarians are mostly Slavic (haplogroup R1a), even more so than some peoples in Europe typified as "Slavic." Only a small percentage has retained it's Uralic origins, so it's safe to say Hungary is an Uralic-speaking Slavic nation with a certain amount of Germanic influx.

Most Finns and Estonians are not European (nor Caucasoid), geographically only. The true origins of Basques have yet to be uncovered, but they're assumed to be a proto-Caucasoid people (much like the Etruscans, Picts etc.)

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Aistulf

The true origins of Basques have yet to be uncovered, but they're assumed to be a proto-Caucasoid people (much like the Etruscans, Picts etc.)

The Basques, together with the Irish in the area of Connacht, have the highest levels of R1b, so they belong to the aboriginal types in Western Europe. The Picts are supposed to have been of the same type.

The Etruscans are assumed to have migrated into the Italic Peninsula from South-Eastern Europe. Not related to the above.

[Aistulf]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

The Basques, together with the Irish in the area of Connacht, have the highest levels of R1b, so they belong to the aboriginal types in Western Europe. The Picts are supposed to have been of the same type.

The Etruscans are assumed to have migrated into the Italic Peninsula from South-Eastern Europe. Not related to the above.

I didn't say they were related, I said they were comparable in the way that they were all ancient/pre-European inhabitants.

[Menydh]

Yes, fine. But still the Etruscans are not in the sense of Old European.

And none of them are pre-European.

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Aistulf

How come? And, Pre-European or proto-European, they still hardly know what they are; especially in the case of Basques and the ancient Picts.

Well, pre-European would imply that they were a people dating to before the arrival of the "Europeans". Which they are not since, if something, they are the Europeans (or, more politically correct, the Old Europeans ... being the Indo-European peoples later arrivals).

Their levels of R1b approach 100%, which is the haplogroup which extended through Western Europe up to Scotland and The Netherlands, prior to the arrivals of other types in the Neolithic from the Middle East.

They haven't even figured out the Etruscan language, and script, yet.

They haven't, and neither have been the Iberian language; but here you have some information to the possible origins of the Etruscans, and a connection to the language: http://www.etruskisch.de/pgs/og.htm

And on the language itself: http://www.geocities.com/jackiesixx/caere/etrlan01.htm

More on the origins: http://users.tpg.com.au/etr/etrusk/po/origins.html

[Menydh]

By the way, I found this link on the DNA of Etruscans on Dienekes' blog:


The Etruscans: A Population-Genetic Study

The origins of the Etruscans, a non-Indo-European population of preclassical Italy, are unclear. There is broad agreement that their culture developed locally, but the Etruscans' evolutionary and migrational relationships are largely unknown. In this study, we determined mitochondrial DNA sequences in multiple clones derived from bone samples of 80 Etruscans who lived between the 7th and the 3rd centuries B.C. In the first phase of the study, we eliminated all specimens for which any of nine tests for validation of ancient DNA data raised the suspicion that either degradation or contamination by modern DNA might have occurred. On the basis of data from the remaining 30 individuals, the Etruscans appeared as genetically variable as modern populations. No significant heterogeneity emerged among archaeological sites or time periods, suggesting that different Etruscan communities shared not only a culture but also a mitochondrial gene pool. Genetic distances and sequence comparisons show closer evolutionary relationships with the eastern Mediterranean shores for the Etruscans than for modern Italian populations. All mitochondrial lineages observed among the Etruscans appear typically European or West Asian, but only a few haplotypes were found to have an exact match in a modern mitochondrial database, raising new questions about the Etruscans' fate after their assimilation into the Roman state.

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v74n4/40826/40826.html?erFrom=8515617444745212104Guest

[Osip]

Today we acctually had an Armenian demonstration on Citizen's Square (Medborgarplatsen) in central Stockholm. They stood there and shouted anti-Turkish things, waving large Armenian flags, I think it's the anniversuary of the Turkish genocide of them.
Anyway, only like one kilometer away the Turks had a large festival on Sergels Square in the heart of the city , waving their large Turkish flags and dancing these ring dances. They also had a dance troop from Turkey itself that preformed. I'm glad these two groups never met, what a fight.

Anyway, I couldn't tell them apart in some aspects. Armenoids many of them. The Armenians, some looked European, others like Iranians or something.

[Klov]

The Armenian who sold me her apartment in London looked like an Arab, but then her family had fled to the Lebanon after the Turkish genocide. Perhaps there had been some local admixture over the generations, but she had an Armenian surname and was a Christian. I would not consider them European. Apart from some outliers, they look near-eastern to me; one might almost say Turkic.

[Savage]

Originally Posted by Manji

Of course the armenians are of orientalid type, but still europid. If armenians aren't europeans so aren't Saami or any other exotic types.

I laugh raw and merciless...

" If Amenians cant be Europeans,.. then cannot Sami either..."

Theres a big difference, Sami lives in Europe and have lived in Scandinavia (Europa???) longer than anybody else.

The posting is too stupid to take serious, ignorant of facts, one should believe it was written by an american or a child.

And Armenians will be Europeans the day Armenia is a part of Europe, and that will not be next week.

Then we have white africans, americans and australians...many of them cultural vampires, and wannabe "europeans" too...

[Galaico]

Well, according to the haplogroup map I have, Armenians share approximately:

25% of R1b (West Paleo-European), although this may not be very reliable, as later studies say that the R1b found in Asia may have been wrongly classified, and could just be ancient R.

33% of I (Paleo-Balkanic)

6% of R1a (East Paleo-European)

That would make up 64% of Paleolithic European haplotypes, if we consider the supposed R1b to be R1b.

The rest would be around 30% of J (Neolithic Middle Eastern), 3% of N (Fenno-Ugrian), and 3% of E3b (Neolithic North African/M-E).