Who does land belong to?

[werner_za]

Originally posted by nathouse
werner za,

please could you give me the name of a history book where i could read up on this please, i am really interested to see if this is true, ie, what you say about canabilism. even if they were written by european writers who most of the time distorted the facts.

If it is still in print try a History Of Southern Africa by Eric A. Walker(Longman). For interest try Chapter 1: The Discovery (pg 6)
All history is biased, I will not dispute that with you but I will refuse to beleive that either Europeans, Africans or Asians have a monopoly on barbarism.

[werner_za]

Originally posted by Malayamerican
"
there are ethnic Russians. they are something like "Whtie Russians" I cannot remember the exact name. but they are considered a Slavic group. and Hitler and his Party were not fond of them. they are Slavic. and would not be in the Nazi party.


"The French are also a Germanic people, remember that Julius Caesar killed over a million Celts in Gaul, this vacuum was filled over the following centuries by German invaders or immigrants( the effect was much the same) resulting in the collapse of the Western Empire. The French are merely West Franks, Charlemagne's kingdom(First Reich, Kaiser Wilhelm had 2nd Reich, Hitler(PBUH) had the 3rd Reich) was divided after his death into East and West"

Germanic invafors does not make Germanic people. Hitler did not consider them such and most French are considered to be some form of Mediteranian white (like Italians, and Spaniards). they are not Germanic. by your logic, Italians, Spaniars, Portugese, and Romanians are all Germanic people. and they are not.

The Nazi party was staffed by the dregs of Germany, when Hitler and his goons were at school pulling the legs off cats the schoolmasters should have recognised them as Niddah and bayoneted them.But that aside some Historians consider the Slavs to be of the Arian race, on that I cannot comment but there is no reason to say that the paler Germans and tanned French and Italians are totally unrelated, there are other factors such as all of the Asian and Negro slaves in mediteranean Europe who were assimilated, so maybe I should just quit geneology( check if that's spelled right) and pick on Khalid76.

You did touch on a point that I hope Niger32 gets to realise that invasion of a counrty does not always change the race of the majority viz Egypt.

By the way Hitler was an incestuous pervert, he penned nothing of any intellectual value, his comments on anything but fornication is in his favourite word superfluous.(You will all tell me if I misspell!!)

[werner_za]

Originally posted by Jiga
Can a fertile imagination like the one of Werner be confined by historical sources? Probably not without extreme difficulty.

With extreme difficulty indeed, but I try!!

[Malayamerican]

"there is no reason to say that the paler Germans and tanned French and Italians are totally unrelated, there are other factors such as all of the Asian and Negro slaves in mediteranean Europe who were assimilated, so maybe I should just quit geneology( check if that's spelled right) and pick on Khalid76. "

no one said they are unrelated. but, the Germans and French and Italians etc are not realted in the mannor you are talking of. the French are Mediteranian mostly where as Germans are vastly Germanic as are Swedes, Norwegians and Fins and other north Europeans for the most part. Hitler, and the Nazis did not see the French as the same as them and the hated Slavs and Russians. also, in Eastern Europe, many people have asian blood as a result of Asian invadors during the Fall of Rome. the Monguls, Huns and various other tribes were Asian and invaded, raped and intermixed the native whites thus giving birth to what would become the Slavic peoples.

[Jiga]

Werner,with manure from Eric Walker to feed your imagination it should not be too difficult to find support for fossilised ideas.

[werner_za]

Originally posted by Malayamerican

no one said they are unrelated. but, the Germans and French and Italians etc are not realted in the mannor you are talking of. the French are Mediteranian mostly where as Germans are vastly Germanic as are Swedes, Norwegians and Fins and other north Europeans for the most part. Hitler, and the Nazis did not see the French as the same as them and the hated Slavs and Russians. also, in Eastern Europe, many people have asian blood as a result of Asian invadors during the Fall of Rome. the Monguls, Huns and various other tribes were Asian and invaded, raped and intermixed the native whites thus giving birth to what would become the Slavic peoples.

Hitler might himself been a Jew, he also considered the British to be Germanic but as the political situation changed he planned to enslave them as a lower race,if the Luftwaffe could only fly straight. There is no homogeneous white race, before the fall of Rome Europe was a melting pot of the mediterranean world. Many Syrians served in the legions and settled in Europe. So would we then consider the French to be Semitic, no, neither sould the Slavs be considered Asians or Asian mongrels.

[Malayamerican]

did I say they should? no. I said they have Asian ancestory. they are mixed. but, by your logic, the French would not be Germanic or Aryan as you say. I have not said the Slavs are asian, but I have said that Hiltler saw them as inferior and impure and nonAryan.the English (who rule Britian) are for the most part Germanic people. the Syrians you are talking about, were far smaller in number than were the numbers of Huns who intermixed withe Europeans to make the Slavs.