No im afraid your quite wrong.
You are mistaking Race with Species. Species is all about genetics and only genetics - its the difference between a human and a monkey or a cow and a goat.
Differing species.
To say that different "races" have differing genetic make ups is rediculous. I mean no offence saying that but its just actually so very very wrong. We as white westerners are genetically the same as Arabs or Africans or Chinese - theres no difference except for semantics on a genetic level.
The difference between races comes from culture, geography, history and nationality; not just genetics - genetics is the smallest part. You dont talk about just genetics when talking about a race; that to me just smacks of old Klu Klux Klan like racism.
"Yes We are the White Race! We are superior just because we are white! Its just genetic!"
Eugh.
The Romans were defeated and pretty much bred out of existance by the migration of various peoples into Roman territories: - the goths, the vandals, the huns, the lombards etc.
The modern Italian race comes from an amalgamation of races; they are no longer Roman therefore the Roman stock of race is extinct. Theres no one left who says "I am Roman!" and means it in the sense of a nationality/race instead of being a citizen of the city of Rome.
Anyway this is WAY WAY off topic lol.
My original point was merely that its not accurate to use leaders of modern states to portray these ancient empires and peoples that no longer exist; and you cant say they do exist because the patently dont; there is no modern nation of Babylon or Persia. What is there is something else.
Its like using Hammurabi of Babylon as a leader for Sumer simply because Babylon came to inhabit and rule the same territories as Sumer centuries later.
You wouldnt do that for Sumer and Babylon so why do it for Iraq and Babylon - it makes no sense.
First of all, I never said the white race was superior to any other races. It is belife, that all races are completly equal to each other, no exceptions.
I agree with you that it wouldn't be accurate to potray armedemajad as the persians or saddam as the babylonains.
Armedemajad, along with at least 99% of the Iranian people, is not Pure Persian. He has some Arab in his blood.
Let me use a pundet square as an example. Lets say a person with brown eyes, and a person with blue eyes has a child. There are four possiblities. In this particular case, all four will be the same thing. There are four twenty-five percent chances of the child having brown eyes, with the blue reccesive trait. If a hetrozygous eyed person(someone with a dominant trait, but the reccesive trait as well, but the dominant trait is what shows, because the dominant trait always shows) has a child with a blue eyed person, half the time the baby will stay dominant, and half the time it will be recessive.
Now if this dominant/recessive way keeps continuing, what do you think will eventually happen? Most everyone will have brown eyes! I am part Iranian myself, and I know a few Iranians with blue eyes. I'm not saying the Persian race is superior or worse to the Arabic race, or any other race. I'm not just saying they're not exactley the same(although just about all Iranians today have some Arabic in them!)
Certian races can have different genetic backgrounds than others. For example, when the Europeans came to America, they gave a lot of disease that sadly killed many Native Americans. This is because the genetic makeup of the Native Americans was not prepared for those diseases. Also, if everyone has the exact same genetic makeup, then how come there is so much diversity on this planet? If everyone has identical genetic makeup, we would all be the same in heigh, weigh, skin tone, eyes, etc.
I know about biology, I've taken the coarse, I know how it is. There is a difference between phenotype and genotype. Phenotype is what you see, genotype is what there is. You do not always use it to catagorize different species. I've seen it in the same species many times.
For example, on the history channel, they've proven it through chromosomes, that a certain tribe in African, has Jewish ancestry. The tribe does not look Jewish at all, and there's really nothing Jewish about them. But its been proven through the chromosomes that the tribe has some Jewish in them.
The modern day people of Italy probably have some Roman in them, but its not pure roman anymore. Like you said yourself, there was intermarriage with the goths, vandals, etc. Still, you'll find SOME Roman blood in most Italians probably. Its just not pure roman anymore.
There is no historical evidence, as far as I know, for the Babylonian race and Persian race being "bred out". Your right, its possible, don't get me wrong. But if there is no evidence to back that up, there is no apparent reason to belive it. (on the other hand, there is no evidence that it DIDN'T happen, so there you go)
I actually even agree with you on the crux of your point- that Mussolini would not be Roman, armedemajad not persian, and Saddam not babylonian.
I disagree with you about something else: That the people of modern Iran have NO persian in them whatsoever, the people of Iraq of NO Babylonian in them whatsoever, and the people of Italy have NO Roman in them whatsoever.
The original people of England where the celts. The Romans invaded, and there was some intermarrage with the romans. Does this mean all english people today are direct decents of the romans, and that celtic blood is totally kicked out? Or does it just mean that most English people probably have both? Obviously, the second one was right.
You could get a chinese person, for example, have him wear a turban, speak arabic, and convert to islam. But genetically, he's still Chinese.
Race is not neccerely based on culture, and definently not nationality. What race is the American race then?
.
