antimo_d

...provided that Dale Crover gives us, gives us, gives us...

oh easy! what do you think about Damon Che from Don Caballero???

Ideographic writing is the second step towards logographic writing, which the Egyptians later codified; the fact that in the evolution of writing among 'European' peoples the initial, logical steps are not found suggests that (rather than improbably jumping straight to the logographic stage) they appropriated Egyptian developments... as for the fact that we already knew how to count, there's no doubt about it, but the Arabs gave us a significant boost, simply by that, if it's true that we still use it today.

Defining the contribution of the Arabs to our culture as 'marginal' seems bold to me (I repeat, however, that 'quantifying' culture seems absurd); for example, just think about the adoption, thanks to the Arabs, of the decimal system, which is still the foundation of our mathematics today, a fundamental science for all of physics with consequent implications in practical technology.

(I clarify that I was not the author of the posts 'right, however', but I welcome his observations)... it is not enough to say that language and writing were different to imagine peoples closed in on themselves who generated their own body of knowledge; after all, when talking about writing, it is plausible that in the Western context its appearance and development are largely due to the Egyptians, who progressed from a pictographic stage of writing to an ideographic one, finally reaching a logographic phase; it is in this phase that, considering it is a logical yet complex evolution, it is presumed that other geographically nearby peoples (the Mediterranean basin was an important vehicle for continuous exchanges) took advantage of Egyptian knowledge to develop their own alphabets, such as the Greek one, from which our own is presumed to descend.

When I say that we are 'children' of Egyptians, Mesopotamians, Eastern peoples, I mean that the populations that settled in Europe during historical times have absorbed knowledge, inventions, and often customs and traditions from those peoples... we are their 'children' in that sense, and it is the result of millennia of evolution, a significant debt in short... in this light, talking about '99%' seems absolutely exaggerated to me, even considering that it's quite difficult to measure 'civilization'... to say that Arabs halted their development with the advent of Islam is inaccurate: they were, at the time of Muhammad, a people of warrior nomads who were not very civilized; their great inventions and knowledge, in mathematics, astronomy, and technology, were primarily absorbed following commercial contacts post-Crusades or wherever a peaceful exchange was possible (like in Sicily).

you say: "the fact that scientific, social, and economic discoveries concern 99% of white populations is another fact that is difficult to refute"... this suggests that you consider 'white populations' to be superior to others... what makes this thought arise is also the disputability of the statement, since (assuming that you do not include, for example, Nubian Egyptians or 'Maghrebis', Arabs, Chinese, etc. among the 'white populations') you ignore the strong cultural debt of the West to the cultures with which it has come into contact (the West, another vague concept... we are still 'children' of Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Eastern civilizations, etc.)

Ah, I almost forgot... you wrote: 'What Torinoscienza.it posted understood everything right away :-))))))) oh my, what a sly fox.... but who has ever talked about genetic differences between human races? I was talking about somatic differences'; somatic traits are expressions of our genes, it's a gene that determines the color of our hair, the shape of our nose, etc. Saying 'genetic difference' is equivalent to saying 'somatic difference', so the meaning of the excerpt from torinoscienza is that (assuming there is no scientific reason to attribute more value to the somatic characteristic 'skin color' than, let’s say, height), two Italians can be more different from each other than an Italian and an African...

If someone has called you a racist, it is not because you divide the population into races, but rather because you attribute superiority to one race over another – whether we like it or not, this can be defined as racist; calling you a fascist may be an inaccuracy, but it stems from the fact that some posts signed, for example, as Panzerdivision (apologia del nazismo, not even fascism) have been attributed to you by many. If it wasn't you, then those who labeled you fascist are mistaken; if it was you, there’s still a mistake, but out of excess of good-heartedness...

So, you are the one who said that human races exist... I simply responded with a rigorous argument I found online; in short, you forgot to specify what you meant by race... you talk about 'somatic and physical differences among people from different geographical areas'; okay. Let’s accept that definition: I just want to point out that in an age of increasingly frequent mixing (with cities like Rome being strongly multi-ethnic - whether you like it or not, that's the reality), it is difficult, and will become even more so, to trace distinctive traits of a specific region - a concept that is itself very vague (where does one region end somatically?), so your definition of race is becoming more and more destined for obsolescence.