Historical Argument That Was In the Wrong Forum

[Patine]

Millitar Dictatorship? I didn't know that, of course I'm not an expert in Japanese history, but I still thinking during the WWII Japan was strongly lead by it's emperor. And they even find a chinese Emperor to rule Manchuria to they, if the Axis won the war, maybe we still have a chinese monarchy because of that.

You insist on buying into the, "real power and authority," of Constitutional Monarchs that is, in fact, just not there, and as a way to say Republicanism is inherently better and must be embraced for the good of these Constitutional Monarchies, when in fact, Republicanism is just an alternative, not an objective improvement, By Civ1, Civ2, and Civ3, both are the Democracy form of Government, as defined, in a First World Context, and not the Monarchy and the Republic forms of Government, respectively, as defined.

 

[Henri Christophe]

By Civ1, Civ2, and Civ3, both are the Democracy form of Government, as defined, in a First World Context, and not the Monarchy and the Republic forms of Government, respectively, as defined.

That is a though question. Is the constitutional monarchy a democracy?

 

[Patine]

That is a though question. Is the constitutional monarchy a democracy?

There's nothing tough about it. Indeed, a Constitutional Monarchy IS Democracy, hands down, because all of those who hold actual power are elected, or appointed by those who are elected, just like in a First World Republic. These Monarch's have no binding and true power over Government. Why can you not understand this?

 

[Kupe Navigator]

Millitar Dictatorship? I didn't know that, of course I'm not an expert in Japanese history, but I still thinking during the WWII Japan was strongly lead by it's emperor.

Lolz nope he was a figurehead. You do know what that means right?

 

[Kupe Navigator]

That is a though question. Is the constitutional monarchy a democracy?

YES. In fact it is olderest form of democracy. Why wouldn't it be?

 

[Henri Christophe]

Lolz nope he was a figurehead. You do know what that means right?

If not Hirohito, who lead the Japan to invade Korea, Manchuria, Indonesia and Hawaii? Who was the dude in charge, because untill now I tough it was the emperor.

YES. In fact it is olderest form of democracy. Why wouldn't it be?

Oldest? I may can understand a constitutional monarchy as a democracy, but not a absolutist monarchy. And countries as USA is older then the constitutional monarchies... I mean, they are a Democratic republic meanwhile in Europe the countries as UK, France and etc was absolutist monarchy.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

If not Hirohito, who lead the Japan to invade Korea, Manchuria, Indonesia and Hawaii? Who was the dude in charge, because untill now I tough it was the emperor.

For Korea this guy:
Itō Hirobumi- first PM of Japan during Meji era.
And for Indonesia and Hawaii this guy:

Tojo Hideki.
Why do you think after wwII only he got executed and not Hirohito?

 

[Kupe Navigator]

And countries as USA is older then the constitutional monarchies...

USA became a thing in 1776 while First PM of UK ( robert Walpole) became a thing in 1721. When USA was fighting for independence UK has long been constitutional monarchy since George I- grandfather of George III

 

[Patine]

Oldest? I may can understand a constitutional monarchy as a democracy, but not a absolutist monarchy. And countries as USA is older then the constitutional monarchies... I mean, they are a Democratic republic meanwhile in Europe the countries as UK, France and etc was absolutist monarchy.

You're incorrect, again. The roots of British Constitutional Government go back to the Tudor and Stuart Dynasties of England since the late 15th Century. Great Britain was nowhere near an Absolute Monarchy at the time of the American Revolution - the claim it was was completely propaganda conjured by Thomas Jefferson that even he knew was inaccurate. Also, a lot of the institutions of Government of the United States emulated ones in the British Parliamentary tradition. Not all, but a very notable number.

 

[Matsuda123]

I agree with that, what I argue in the beginning of this thread is about Egyptians, who was black in ancient times, was becoming "Caucasoides" after Assyrian invasions (and so many other invasions Egypt had in it's history). Nowadays Egypt is a caucasoide country, neither white or black. But when it was founded it was a black country.


I never heard that before, can you tell me more about?
But, if all humanity come from Africa. Everyone was once Black.

I'm afraid I have to disagree then... Certainly there were Blacks there, among the population of mostly Mid-Easterners, and some were probably even leaders. That'll happen when you live next door to Ethiopia and Nubia. But I wouldn't agree at all that the majority of the country was Black. The art and anthropology and language would say otherwise.

I'm not super familiar but some African Supremacists state that both MesoAmerica and East Asia were once Black too. Solely based on artwork of sculptures from the earliest cultures in both regions. Sculptures with damage to them, or are not particularly well carved or cast. Which is laughable. Yes, sometimes East and mostly Southeast Asians have wide noses. That doesn't mean they're Black... Epicanthic folds occur in Caucasians occasionally too, this doesn't make them East Asian.

I don't personally buy into the Out of Africa theory... Loads of older history books cite Central Asia near the Mideast as the original home of mankind, which if you ask me, makes a lot more sense. Makes sense to me why organized civilizations started in places as far as the Yellow River, the Tigris and Euphrates, the Nile, and the Indus. All at relatively the same time. Also I find it hard to buy that Blacks became East Asian and Mideasterners. Makes more sense to me that you would start with a sort of proto-Mideasterner's features not quite as well developed as we see today, and become different racial groups based on sexual preference selection and climate conditions of the regions.

 

[Lexicus]

Loads of older history books cite Central Asia near the Mideast as the original home of mankind,

It's funny because those older history books made those claims on the basis of racist preconceptions and little else. Racist preconceptions that you obviously share. because the actual evidence for the out-of-africa hypothesis is more-or-less incontrovertible at this point.

 

[Matsuda123]

It's funny because those older history books made those claims on the basis of racist preconceptions and little else. Racist preconceptions that you obviously share. because the actual evidence for the out-of-africa hypothesis is more-or-less incontrovertible at this point.

Please refrain from making rather bold and frankly offensive assumptions about me and my beliefs. I don't have any, "racist preconceptions", as many others on this forum can attest to my love and affinity for cultures all across the world.

I say this because it seems to make sense to me that if Central Asia is the origin spot of mankind, then it makes sense how these civilizations cropped up in these distant river areas at relatively similar times. I wouldn't ever say mankind began as "white". It was so clearly not Caucasian in all of these places. They came way later. Incontrovertible until some hundred years or thousand years of fifty years later when new evidence comes up, as it so often does. I could very well be wrong, and I hold that I could be wrong right this moment too.. Perhaps I overlooked something, there is so much information out there, it's hard to learn it all. I just think it is a possibility that mankind came from Central Asia.

 

[schlaufuchs]

lmao, I'm not racist, I just refuse to accept the extremely well-documented proposition that my ancestors were African for some reason.

 

[Patine]

It's funny because those older history books made those claims on the basis of racist preconceptions and little else. Racist preconceptions that you obviously share. because the actual evidence for the out-of-africa hypothesis is more-or-less incontrovertible at this point.

Please refrain from making rather bold and frankly offensive assumptions about me and my beliefs. I don't have any, "racist preconceptions", as many others on this forum can attest to my love and affinity for cultures all across the world.

I say this because it seems to make sense to me that if Central Asia is the origin spot of mankind, then it makes sense how these civilizations cropped up in these distant river areas at relatively similar times. I wouldn't ever say mankind began as "white". It was so clearly not Caucasian in all of these places. They came way later. Incontrovertible until some hundred years or thousand years of fifty years later when new evidence comes up, as it so often does. I could very well be wrong, and I hold that I could be wrong right this moment too.. Perhaps I overlooked something, there is so much information out there, it's hard to learn it all. I just think it is a possibility that mankind came from Central Asia.

Allow me. Humanity, as a SPECIES, began on the savannas of prehistoric East Africa. The earliest civilizations (as archaeologically defined - sedentary, agrarian, urban, socially-organized, and with recorded history) began MUCH LATER on those far flung river valleys after hundreds-of-thousands of years of prehistoric migration to much of the land area of the globe and genetic evolution to our polymorphic state as a species. All of that has VERY powerful evidence behind it.

 

[Patine]

I don't personally buy into the Out of Africa theory... Loads of older history books cite Central Asia near the Mideast as the original home of mankind, which if you ask me, makes a lot more sense. Makes sense to me why organized civilizations started in places as far as the Yellow River, the Tigris and Euphrates, the Nile, and the Indus. All at relatively the same time. Also I find it hard to buy that Blacks became East Asian and Mideasterners. Makes more sense to me that you would start with a sort of proto-Mideasterner's features not quite as well developed as we see today, and become different racial groups based on sexual preference selection and climate conditions of the regions.

What species in Central Asia, extant, or in the fossil record, do you envision humans evolving from, if I may ask? Some prehistoric form of horse? And, there would be ONE HELL of a, "missing link," there.

 

[schlaufuchs]

What species in Central Asia, extant, or in the fossil record, do you envision humans evolving from, if I may ask? Some prehistoric form of horse? And, there would be ONE HELL of a, "missing link," there.

He means a species of especially beautiful people residing in the valleys of a certain mountain range located between the Black and Caspian seas.

 

[Patine]

He means a species of especially beautiful people residing in the valleys of a certain mountain range located between the Black and Caspian seas.

And where do they come from?

 

[Henri Christophe]

I say this because it seems to make sense to me that if Central Asia is the origin spot of mankind

I guess this is confuse because the humanity begins in Africa but the Homo Sapiens sapiens is from central asia.
The fossils in Africa is from Austrolopitecus, homo habilis and other pre-humans species.

 

[schlaufuchs]

I guess this is confuse because the humanity begins in Africa but the Homo Sapiens sapiens is from central asia.
The fossils in Africa is from Austrolopitecus, homo habilis and other pre-humans species.

uhhhhh...no?

 

[Lexicus]

I guess this is confuse because the humanity begins in Africa but the Homo Sapiens sapiens is from central asia.
The fossils in Africa is from Austrolopitecus, homo habilis and other pre-humans species.

Yeah, no. Anatomically and behaviorally modern humans clearly emerged in Africa.