What is Western civilization?
Something that only exists when people claim it's threatened.
>>851472
Europeans
>>851632
That's way too fucking broad
>>851632
>Russians
>Balkanshits
>Romanians
>Hungarians
>Western civilization
wew
>>851640
>>Russians
>>Balkanshits
>>Romanians
>>Hungarians
>White
>>851472
Globalized, commercialized shit with a brilliant past.
>>851648
>white=western
Never realized the Ainu were westerners
you never find anything like this outside the west
Any type of culture that is heavily influenced or modeled after the ideals of the enlightenment
>>851472
The agglomeration of societies, cultures, histories, etc. descended from Ancient Greece and influenced by Rome.
>>851648
>>>Romanians
>human
lad
Greco-Roman culture with philosophy of the 17th-19th century.
It's going down the drain though, as Marxism is still popular nowadays.
>>851809
So ancient Egypt is western because they influenced the Greeks?
>>851825
Do you need help reading? I said descended from Ancient Greece, not influenced Ancient Greece.
>>851831
Egypt was literally ruled by Greeks, as opposed to most of Europe. It was also influenced by Rome.
>>851472
A meme
>>851821
>as Marxism is still popular nowadays.
>I have never left my house
>>851831
Your implying Egypt didn't gave influence to the Greeks, that ancient Greece culture was indigenous.
>>852094
*You're
>>852081
Ptolemaic Egypt is not the first thing someone thinks of when you say Ancient Egypt usually.
>>852094
>Your implying Egypt didn't gave influence to the Greeks, that ancient Greece culture was indigenous.
No I'm not, you're inferring a position incorrectly from no information. Ancient Egypt did influence Ancient Greece. Ancient Greek culture started from outside sources of course.
>>852129
>Ptolemaic Egypt is not the first thing someone thinks of when you say Ancient Egypt usually.
Everyone thinks of Cleopatra when someone says Ancient Egypt.
I know it is wrong to attribute Egypt that way but it doesn't matter what someone thinks of Egypt.
>>852140
They think Cleopatra and shallowly link her with Tutankhamun and Ramses.
They don't know shit about the Ptomely family, nor do they care, being two dimensional animals.
>>852140
Eh that's language I guess so misunderstandings are inevitable so I don't blame you for conflating the two then. Still I think all parties here can agree that Ancient Egypt should refer to only the Old, Middle, and New Kingdom periods.
A meme which constantly changes depending on which politician or leader is trying to lampoon off the back of it.
>>851472
The best
>>851472 (OP)
A good idea
The way I think of it is like this:
First there were Egyptian and Mesopotamian civilizations. A bit later there were also Indus and Aegean civilizations, but both died prematurely. Classical civilization then emerged in Greece before spreading in every direction and subsuming Egyptian and Mesopotamian civilizations. Classical civilization thrived under Rome while it gave way in the east to Zoroastrian civilization. Then as Rome collapsed, classical civilization was split into three; Western, Orthodox, and Islamic (which also subsumed Zoroastrian civilization).
Western civilization emerged slowly from the mess that was Latin Christendom before solidifying under the Carolingians and fully developing in the Romanesque period. It originally consisted of the former Western Roman Empire and a little bit beyond, but over time spread east into the German and West Slavic lands, Scandinavia, and the Baltics. It became distinct from Orthodox civilization, which was first centered around Byzantium but also included Armenia, Nubia, Ethiopia, Bulgaria, and Russia which gradually replaced Byzantium itself as the Orthodox heartland. Over time most of Orthodox civilization became Westernized.
Indic, East Asian, Mesoamerican, and Andean civilizations developed separately.
None of these civilizations can be defined by a few distinct traits. Rather they're just groups of civilized cultures in which the elite political and intellectual culture is shared. They have similar institutions, ideologies, worldviews, etc. They change over time, but generally they change together; if they don't and different part develop in different directions, then the civilization splits just as Western and Orthodox civilizations split from the Classical. They're also purely historical concepts, because these days Western institutions are dominant everywhere and it's no longer a useful way to divide the world (Huntington a shit).
But that's just, like, my opinion, man.
>>851640
Hungarians certainly were western.
>>851472
Something that will not exist anymore after 25 years from now.
>>852762
They really weren't. Maybe the first Magyars were, but the kingdom of Hungary was a completely Catholic Western state.
>>852767
Catholic = western. They literally got a future catholic saint leading the country, doesn't get any more western than that.
A nice concept
All cultures which had nigger slaves in africa to pay for their megalomaniacal architecture and life styles.
>>853658
DUDE
>>851472
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feliks_Koneczny
>>853658
Like Egypt?
>>852753
>Zoroastrian civilization
What the fuck are you spewing.
>>854094
Are you unaware that Persia wasn't always Islamic?
>>854098
Zoroastrianism is a religion not a civilization you mongoloid.
>>854098
Yes but a better choice of words would've been "Iranic" or "Aryan" civilization, not Zoroastrian.
>>851472
Judeo-christian spirit inside a greco-roman body wearing germanic clothes.
>>854107
"Zoroastrianism" is a word.
>>854124
I think you misunderstand the point. Nobody was talking about Iranian or Persian civilization or culture. Somebody referred to the Zoroastrian civilization (i.e. the social structures, titles, and such that the Zoroastrian Iranic peoples had during pre-Islamic Persian history) and you read "Iranian" because you're retarded.
>>854470
>"Zoroastrianism" is a word.
For the religion.
Also no one refers to pre-Islamic Persian or Iranian civilizations as "Zoroastrian" in a secular theme outside of religion itself. And Iranians since the earliest record periods of evidence have always referred to themselves as Aryan, not Zoroastrian in terms of culture and racial identity.
I don't agree with you one bit.
>>854480
>For the religion
Yes, at least you understand that.
>in a secular theme outside of religion itself
I don't think that makes much sense, desu. Is there evidence of a sharp division between civil society and the theocracy in ancient Persia?
>Aryan
So we should call it "Aryan civilization?" That seems to be far too broad and charged.
>>854490
>Too broad
Why would it be too broad when Iranian people have used that term historically to specifically refer to themselves and their kin for thousands of years?
>Is there evidence of a sharp division between civil society and the theocracy in ancient Persia?
Ancient Persia wasn't a theocracy in the first place.
Celtic/greco-roman/scandinavian/germanic/etc. cultural heritage, medieval christian culture and tradition, west european philosophy, liberalism, democracy, modernisation and so on. These are just whatever came to my mind first. I realise the greeks and romans were heavily influenced by non-european cultures but how they integrated foreign stuff into their own societies is when it can first be considered to be part of 'western' cultural history.
I'm not a pro /his/torian so pls no bully.
>>854498
Fine, call it Aryan civilization if you want, I thought you were taking issue with the idea that a pre-Islamic civilization existed in Persia in the first place.
There are problems with taking people who call themselves "Aryans" at their word, what defines Aryan civilization? Indo-European language and polytheism?
>>854515
I'd say what "defines" Aryan culture of ancient Iranians would be shared cultural link, languages, customs, and geographic area. I mean look at the Parni tribes/Parthians, they are located relatively next to Persians, speak a similar language, and for all their differences stand no further apart from the Persians then the Scottish do with the English.
Rome
>>854530
>Aryan culture of ancient Iranians
But Aryan civilizations includes the groups that conquered northern India. Those are decidedly non-Persian.
>>854542
Not all Iranians are Persians, nigga.
>what is yellow?
>hurr durr yellow doesn't exist!
>>854557
What the fuck is your point? You haven't made a good one yet.
>>854581
You haven't made any point to begin with.
>>851472
What is?
>>854605
My point is that there was a pre-Islamic civilization in Persia that was effectively demolished by the Islamic and Mongol conquests later in history. The civilization another poster initially described as "Zoroastrian" is obviously what was being referred to. You came in here and started sperging out because "HURR THAT'S A RELIGION"
>>854618
Your "point" was a nonsensical argument that had to referring to pre-Islamic Persia solely as "Zoroastrian" civilization which makes zero sense. No one sperged out on anything until you had a hissy fit for being called out on it.
>>854622
Shut the fuck up
Go shitpost on /b/
>>854622
Get the fuck out of here. You sperged out becase of the exact reason I stated earlier and you're still doing it. The post you took issue with was the best one in this thread. The term you took issue with is not as controversial as you think it is. "Aryan" is a far more controversial classification of that civilization.
I'm not the guy who wrote >>852753, by the way.
>>854625
There is no shitposting you illiterate troglodyte. Fuck off.
>>854633
>Get the fuck out of here.
No, what you're arguing is factually bullshit.
>"Aryan" is far more controversial classiffication of that civilization.
No it isn't. The only controversy regarding "Aryan" as a term is European fixation with the term and Nazi connotations. Iranians have always referred to their lands, their peoples, and their culture as Aryan. I haven't sperged out on anything.
No one in academia period refers specifically to pre-Islamic Persians or Iranian peoples as "Zoroastrian" civilization. Period.
>>854633
>"Aryan" (/ˈɛəriən, ˈɛərjən, ˈær-/)[1] is a term meaning "noble" which was used as a self-designation by ancient Indo-Iranian people.
Even both the Achaemenids and Sassanids referred to their societies as "Eranshar" meaning Land of Aryans.
>>851640
that's just western civilization tainted with a communistic history
>>854783
>Iranians have always referred to their lands, their peoples, and their culture as Aryan.
How far back does "always" go? And, again, the problem is that they're referring to themselves that way--there's no reason to take that at face value when Aryan civilization exists outside of Iran.
>>854791
OK, so they called themselves that. What of it?
>>854811
>How far back does "always" go?
As far back as the earliest attested records can be dated.
>Aryan civilization exists outside of Iran.
Aryan civilizations exists with Iranian peoples, the only other denomination of the term is Indo-Aryan languages, because the related Iranian peoples that invaded India were eventually assimilated completely and Vedic culture took root once more.
Now can you provide any actual evidence of any scholarly or academic terminology ever referring to Pre-Islamic Iranian societies as "Zoroastrian" civilizations?
>>851472
1 2 3 4 5
>>854845
>Aryan civilizations exists with Iranian peoples
My problem is that "Aryan civilizations" is literally too broad a term to describe what that poster was describing.
>>854859
I just don't see the issue of it being "too broad". So I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree with this.
>>854868
It refers to Islamic Iranian cultures, not just pre-Islamic. As I say, there are multiple disconnects in the history of the Iranian region. The biggest ones are the Islamic invasion, which levelled pre-Islamic culture in the area, and the Mongol invasion, which simply flattened everything and killed a lot of people and caused irreversible damage, while failing to have the destructive effect on preexisting culture in the region that Islam did.
Why is this hard to understand?
>>854881
There is not a single shred of evidence, usage, or academic/scholarly discourse on any existence of acknowledging the term of "Zoroastrian" civilizations.
They only use pre or post Islamic to refere to Iranian civilizations and socities dependent on the era and period of time. It's that simple. I've asked you to repeatedly put up and you haven't done so once.
>>854923
>They only use pre or post Islamic to refere to Iranian civilizations
Then you should have suggested that in the first place instead of yelling about Aryans
>>854881
>As I say, there are multiple disconnects in the history of the Iranian region.
No there isn't.
>The biggest ones are the Islamic invasion
The Iranian plateau and Khorasan region remained Iranian thoroughly despite the fall of the Sassanid dynasty and Neo-Persian Empire for centuries after that. Not buying that.
>and the Mongol invasion, which simply flattened everything and killed a lot of people and caused irreversible damage
Hyperbole. Mongols killing large populations didn't see Iranian people stop using their Iranian tongues and languages, stop celebrating Iranian cultural traditions, end Iranian folklore and mythology, or anything such.
You are exaggerating tremendously.
>>854938
>The Iranian plateau and Khorasan region remained Iranian
Not at all the pont
>Hyperbolee
Bullshit
>Iranian tongues and languages
Like I said, the culture wasn't harmed that much.
>You are exaggerating tremendously
You are misunderstanding the original point being made.
>>854929
I never "yelled" about anything. I contested your flawed made up use of the term "Zoroastarian" civilizations for pre-Islamic Iranian cultures and societies because it doesn't exist as an actual used term by academia or scholars who specialize in studying Iranian history.
The fact we have actual evidence dating back to the Arsacid and Sassanid periods of using the term Aryan to describe Iranian peoples and lands is more then enough to put the boot on the term "Zoroastarian" which wasn't even universal among Iranian peoples as a religion to end with.
>>854949
>Not at all the pont
Then what was your point>
>Bullshit
It's not. Most of Central Asia remained Iranian until Turkic tribes and people started to force off Iranians from the Greater Khorasan region. Which is why the furthest extent of Iranian people are now limited outside of the Iranian plateau to just Tajikistan, Afghanistan, and Northwest Pakistan.
>>854961
>your
I'm not the first guy who mentioned Zoroastrianism.
>it doesn't exist as an actual term
You understand that language functions performatively, don't you? This is really nitpicky on your part, this is 4chan.
>Not at all the point
That there was a distinctive culture that was not Muslim in Persia prior to the introduction of Islam.
>It's not
I'm not claiming they stopped being Iranian, you're actually ignoring the fact that I'm not denying the existence of Iranian culture after the Islamic and Mongol incursions. You're strawmanning hard.
>>851472
those grenadiers, goddamn
>>855034
>You understand that language functions performatively, don't you?
You understand that isn't the context being debated here, don't you?
>That there was a distinctive culture that was not Muslim
Religion isn't the basis of culture. Iranians still celebrate many of the same traditions, customs, and holidays they did before the rise of Islam and the fall of Zoroastrianism. So this is where I'm having issue with how you or him or whatever are using it.
>You're strawmanning hard.
I'm not strawmanning on anything here. You used the term "irreversible" damage specifically to invoke a point about their culture, and I countered that.
>>855063
>that isn't the context being debated here
Then what is
>Religion isn't the basis of culture
Islam had a major impact on the things Persians were allowed to do.
>holidays
Really not the point. Iran is currently an Islamic republic. If you really want to claim that the introduction of Islam wasn't a seminal point in Iranian history, that's up to you.
>I'm not strawmanning
Yes you are.
>>851632
>scottish civilization is italian civilization
>portugese civilization is polish ukrainian civilization
>macedonian civilization is danish civilization
well, that sure held up
>>855083
>Then what is
The debate of using the term "Zoroastrian" to refer to pre-Islamic Iranian civilizations.
>Islam had a major impact on the things Persians were allowed to do.
Sure, but it isn't the basis of their culture then or now.
>Really not the point.
It makes a large part of it actually.
>Iran is currently an Islamic Republic
So?
>Introduction of Islam wasn't a seminal point in Iranian history
That's not what's being argued here, you're now moving the goal posts.
>Yes you are.
No, I am not.
Everything that was Catholic after the Great Schism, and mainland North America.
I don't know if I would include Mexico.
>>851481
Hue
>>855083
>Iran is currently an Islamic Republic
After an illegal coup and the Mullahs with the Revolutionary Guard who curbed student demonstrators who simply wanted greater freedoms and liberties with a secular country.
The Mullahs are not in power or maintaining the theocratic government from a populist stance in Iran then or now.
>>855095
>The debate of using the term "Zoroastrian" to refer to pre-Islamic Iranian civilizations.
I take issue with your absurdly broad use of "Aryan" just as much as you take issue with "Zoroastrian." I'm not even committed to it anymore, I'm just trying to point out that your terminology is flawed.
>It makes a large part of it actually
In your strawman version of what's going on, maybe
>So?
So Islam is a significant part of Persian history?
>That's not what's being argued here
It literally is, though, that and that the Mongols killed a lot of people but didn't harm the culture irreparably. Go back and read my posts if you disagree.
>No, I am not
Yes you are.
>>851472
Cultures of/influenced by the historical Western Europe ( NOTE: Western Europe is influenced by Ancient Greece and Rome)
Therefore, pic related + North America, Latin America, South Korea, Japan, Philippines, Singapore, Australia, and South Africa are all Western Civilization.
>>855123
What does that have to do with any point I'm trying to make?
>>855090
>Mexican civilization is Roman civilization
Heh
>>855132
>I take issue with you absurdly broad use of "Aryan"
I already said that's your problem, the fact that historical evidence shows Iranian people using that term for thousands of years is something you still haven't rebuked or provided any sort of credible counter argument to.
>I'm just trying to point out that your terminology is flawed.
Its not.
>In your strawman version of what's going on, maybe.
There is no strawman argument, you can keep harping this ad naseum but it won't change the reality of the fact that never happened.
>So Islam is a significant part of Persian history?
So is this you still trying to change the goal posts here? Because the context is over the use of using "Zoroastrian" with pre-Islamic Iranian cultures/civilizations, not Islamic. Stick with that.
>It literally is
It literally isn't
>that and the Mongols killed a lot of people
Irrelevant and I already have seen enough of your posts before hand so I don't need to re-read them when nothing has changed in your argumentation on this.
>Yes you are.
No, I'm not. There are no ethnic Iranian people outside of the Parsi in India, who are assimilated racially by various Indo-Vedic peoples when they emigrated there. They don't even maintain their original tongue and use an Indian language instead.
Aryan/Iranian has always been the terminology used for their civilizations, lands, peoples, and cultures. It is historically accurate, culturally accurate, and linguistically accurate across academic and scholarly research with Iranian history for centuries.
>>855136
Why did you bring up the Islamic Republic in the first place then?
>>851472
A bunch of French, Germans, and Anglos trying to claim Greco-Roman cultural heritage, mixed with vague Enlightenment ideals
>>854094
>>854107
>>854124
>>854480
>>854498
I'm the guy who wrote the original post, sorry I wasn't very clear by what I meant by 'Zoroastrian civilization' since I was really just concentrating mostly on the West.
Anyway, what I'm referring to (and I know it's not a common term) is Iran under the later Arsacids and Sassanids, and maybe the pre-Islamic Sogdians but I don't know much about them. I call it Zoroastrian civilization because under the Sassanid dynasty Zoroastrianism became highly entwined with the Iranian state and elite culture, becoming a kind of leading ideology for civilization as a whole. This was in contrast to the Achaemenids, who practiced Zoroastrianism personally but didn't base their entire civilization around it; rather they adopted Mesopotamian elite culture and institutions. Of course it was also in contrast to later Islamic Iranians.
Maybe you could also call it Sassanid civilization but I feel like the Arsacids and Sogdians might be included too (I don't know much about either of these though, so feel free to disagree). What I don't mean by it is just pre-Islamic Iranian civilization, and you couldn't call it Aryan because Aryan refers to a wide range of peoples who lived under different civilizations as in India. Aryans originally shared much in common, but as they grew into actual civilization in India and Iran they became extremely different and couldn't be called a single 'Aryan civilization'. I wouldn't call it Iranian civilization either, because it doesn't include Islamic or Achaemenid Iran which were a part the wider civilizations of Mesopotamia and Islam. If you spoke of 'Iranian civilization', people would assume you're talking about all Iranian civilizations rather than just the post-Greek pre-Islamic period.
That's why I use Zoroastrian civilization as a term, but really it's just something I use for my own convenience.
>>855161
>Iranian people using that term for thousands of years
Again, I don't know how many times I'm going to have to tell you this, the people who conquered North India and introduced Aryan cultuere were, guess what, part of Aryan civilization. The phenomenon we're talking about-pre-Islamic Iran-is not geographically located in India. Your label is too broad.
>It's not
Yeah it is
>There is no strawman
Yes there is.
>change the goalposts
No, I've admitted that a word I was defending may not have been the correct one to describe a phenomenon, I want you to admit that Aryan doesn't refer only to Iranians for the same reason.
>Irrelevant
Not reallay, faggot, because I literally make the point that the Mongols killed a lot of people and the culture remained. The fact that you see a lot of death as irrelevant is just odd to me.
>There are no ethnic Iranian people outside of the Parsi in India
So you even fucking admit that the term doesn't refer to the group I want to talk about.
Stop shitposting.
Western civilization as distinct from Mediterranean civilization was born in the wake of the Arab conquests that shattered the unity of the Mediterranean world.
More specifically, the breaking of the alliance between the Byzantine Emperor and the Bishop of Rome during the Iconoclast Controversy, and the creation of an alliance between the Papacy and the Carolingians of the Frankish Monarchy instead, can be pinpointed as the moment when Western civilization was born. Until then, Christianity was oriented towards the Mediterranean, it hadn't even expanded in the last 300 years from the areas where the Roman Empire had control, and was still limited to the cities.
But this new alliance between Pope and Frankish king, and the work of Irish and Anglo-Saxon monks in the non-Christianized areas of Europe, began a process where Christianity spread eastwards into Germany and Eastern Europe.
Later new influences were brought, like Greek and Roman thought during the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, but the core of Western civilization will always be Latin Christendom as it was born in the 8th century.
>>855176
The Iranian tribes that conquered Northern India were rapidly assimilated and their language and culture were eventually indistinct from native Dravidian and Indic/Vedic peoples own who were originally their subjects. There are no "Aryans" in India and therefore the term maintains itself when referring to specifically Indo-Iranian peoples.
>Yeah it is
>Yes there is
Sterling rebuttal, dude.
>Aryan doesn't refer only to Iranians for the same reason.
The root word comes from the Iranian languages, referring to the Iranian people. Unless you are using the word "Aryan" with Gobineau tier ubermensch nonsense, it will refer only to Iranians correctly in context.
>Not really faggot
Ad hominems now?
>So even you fucking admit that the term doesn't refer to the group I want to talk about
No. Re-read again, slowly this time.
>Stop shitposting.
I don't think my posts are "shitposts" just because I'm proving you factually wrong on everything here.
>>855173
You can just call it "Iranian" civilization. That's always what it has been referred to, regardless of Zoroastrianism or Islam.
>>855211
Look, you're not even talking about what we want to talk about. "Aryan" is a descriptor that applies to many more groups than the guy who wrote the original post wanted to talk about. My basic point is that you're autistic and your suggestion of an alternative is basically a way of talking about the entire history of the region and its inhabitants, not the specific region in question.
>They don't even maintain their original tongue and use an Indian language instead.
This isn't about the present exclusively, though.
>>855163
Because it isn't usually contested that Islam is, I don't know, significant in the history of the Middle-East.
>>855225
>Aryan is a descriptor that applies to many groups
Iranian groups is the only correct descriptor for that term.
>You're autistic
No, but its interesting how you're baiting and becoming increasingly antagonistic now.
>you're suggestion of an alternative
You keep dancing around this and its getting annoying. I asked you multiple times to cite sources, evidence, factual data, or academic resources that have EVER referred to Pre-Islamic Iranian cultures as "Zoroastrian" cultures/socities/nations, whatever, you have yet to put up.
Why? Because it doesn't exist.
>entire history of the region
Except they still refer to that specific people, the Iranians, as Aryan/Iranian civilizations. It goes beyond Iran to what makes up parts of Central Asia, Eurasia, Steppe areas, and Caucasus, so you are still wrong on this.
>This isn't about the present exclusively, though.
This is about the exclusive fact that Aryan can only be used specifically to Iranian people. Seems open and shut enough for me.
>>855230
No one ever contested what "Islam" is in the first place. So why did you bring it up with the Islamic Republic in the first place?
>>855259
>Iranian groups is the only correct descriptor for that term.
What the fuck are you on about? You're actually the first person I've heard make this claim.
>baiting
>increasingly antagonistic
Because you're funcitonally illiterate.
>I asked you multiple times for sources..."Zoroastrian"
There you go again, attacking a point I conceded posts ago.
>Except they still refer to that people
And also other groups that aren't what's in question.
>This is about the exclusive fact that Aryan can only be used specifically to Iranian people.
But that's not true!
>>855266
>So why did you bring it up with the Islamic Republic in the first place?
To remind you that Islam is a significant factor in Iranian culture and politics, which is basically the point I'm trying to hammer into you.
>>855211
>You can just call it "Iranian" civilization. That's always what it has been referred to, regardless of Zoroastrianism or Islam.
That really doesn't work. Iranian has flourished under three different civilizations; Mesopotamian, Zoroastrian/Sassanid/whatever you want to call it, and Islamic. 'Iranian Civilization' refers to all of these as they flourished within Iran, but they're still distinct civilizations. You can't use 'Iranian civilization' to refer to any specific one in isolation from the others.
>The Iranian tribes that conquered Northern India were rapidly assimilated and their language and culture were eventually indistinct from native Dravidian and Indic/Vedic peoples own who were originally their subjects. There are no "Aryans" in India and therefore the term maintains itself when referring to specifically Indo-Iranian peoples.
Are you an Iranian, by any chance? This is all wrong and it sounds like some kind of Iranian nationalist narrative. India wasn't conquered by 'Iranian tribes', it was conquered by Indo-Aryans who were a separate group from the Iranians even before the entered India. And the Aryans in India were never assimilated into the native 'Vedic' people as you call them. They were the Vedic people, and assimilated the natives more than the other way around. If anything, it was the Iranians who were subsumed into the native culture, since they adopted Mesopotamian civilization when they conquered the Middle East. The Indo-Aryans on the other hand only seem to have adopted a limited amount of native beliefs while retaining and developing their own culture, which eventually gave rise to Vedic religion and eventually Hinduism and Indian civilization.
>>855289
>What the fuck are you on about?
Are you illiterate?
>Because you are funcitionally illerate.
*functionally
*illiterate
Also no, and again nice ad hominems my shitposting friend.
>Also other groups that aren't what's in question.
Except not true in any case.
>To remind you that Islam is a significant factor in Iranian culture and politics
That has no barring on the discussion and it doesn't supersede or take priority on pre-Islamic traditions in Iranian cultures to this day.
You have nothing here.
>>855308
>ad hominems
I'm addressing you, not the arguments, so they're just insults.
>Except not true
But, again, you're fucking wrong.
>and it doesn't supersede or take priority on pre-Islamic traditions in Iranian cultures to this day.
LOLOLOL
I didn't know we had the PIDF here alongside the JIDF, but that would actually explain an awful lot.
>>855296
Iranian is a race of various Iranian tribes who are ethnically, lingustically, and culturally related. Its that simple.
>"Iranian Civilization" refers to all of these as they flourished within Iran
Iranian civilizations are not limited to the counry of Iran.
>but they're still distinct civilizations
They're distinct by the passage of time and religion, not by culture or anything else. Its a continuous process.
>You can't use "Iranian civilization" to any specific one in isolation from others.
Except historically we have done so and will continue to do so. The Scythians are an Iranian people, who spoke an Iranian language, who practiced similar customs as the rest of the other Iranian and Iranic peoples despite largely maintaining themselves in Eurasia rather then directly in Mesopotamia.
>Are you Iranian, by any chance?
No? Are you by any chance regardless attempting to poison the well?
>India wasn't conquered by "Iranian tribes", it was conquered by Indo-Aryans
Indo-Aryans are Indo-Iranians actually.
>Aryans in India were never assimilated into the native Vedic people.
Actually they were.
>They were Vedic people
They weren't before the assimilation.
>If anything, it was the Iranians who were subsumed into the native culture
That's like saying Romans were subsumed by Greek and Hellenistic culture. And no, the majority of India's demographic even thousands of years ago were Vedic and Dravidian, never ethnically originally Indo-Iranian/Indo-Aryan.
>>855315
You aren't addressing anything, you are spamming one-liners and throwing personal attacks because you have no actual factual argumentation to bring to the discussion in the first place. Which exemplifies why you are nothing more then a typical shitposter.
>>855341
*country of Iran
>>855134
>Latin America
>Phillipines
>no West Slavs or Hungarians
stop shitposting juan
>>855341
>Iranian civilizations are not limited to the counry of Iran.
I guess I should have said 'among Iranian peoples' then.
>They're distinct by the passage of time and religion, not by culture or anything else. Its a continuous process.
That's utterly wrong. Do you think that religion is just facade over some kind of primal culture? It's not. Cultures change. Safavid Iran had none of the same institutions or intellectual culture as the Achaemenids. They were different civilizations. The survival, in modified form, of a few traditions like Nowruz doesn't justify lumping all Iranian speakers throughout history as a single civilization. Civilization is not defined by ethnicity or language, but by institutions, ideologies, intellectual cultures, worldviews, and so on. These things were not the same throughout Iranian history, and Iran never existed in an isolated vacuum.
>No? Are you by any chance regardless attempting to poison the well?
Iranian or not, you seem to be promoting an Iranian nationalist narrative about a shared primal culture throughout history, plus this pseudo-history about Iranians being the only 'true' Aryans. I don't know what your deal is, but you clearly have an agenda.
>Indo-Aryans are Indo-Iranians actually.
No, they are not. What the fuck are you on about? Indo-Aryans were a separate group from Iranians prior to entering India, hence why the Mitanni in Syria were also Indo-Aryans.
>Actually they were
>They weren't before the assimilation.
Nice argument. So where did all the Indo-European culture in India come from then?
>That's like saying Romans were subsumed by Greek and Hellenistic culture
Yeah. That's completely true. It's the single most basic fact there is about Roman civilization. Jesus fuck.
>>855341
>You aren't addressing anything
I'm insulting you
>no actual factual argumentation
You haven't provided documentation about your claim that "Aryan" only refers to people living in what is now Iran.
>>855409
>That's utterly wrong.
No it isn't. Do you think religion is the sole basis or definition of any society or civilization? That's somehow the entire fulcrum of how a culture maintains or defines itself? Its not. Iranian cultures and customs have maintained themselves consistently despite any upheaval in religion from the transition of pre-Zoroastrian beliefs to Islamic ones.
Civilization is defined by its people. Not by the religions the people themselves practice or follow.
>You seem to be promoting an Iranian nationalist narrative.
Utterly nonsensical.
>psuedo-history
There is nothing "psuedo" about archaeological, etymological, cultural, or linguistic records that contradicts your beliefs or views on the matter period.
>You clearly have an agenda.
You are utterly ludcrious and inane, I have no "agenda" outside of the promotion of the fact that I am dismissing autistic fictionalized claims like the moron who refers to Iranian civilization before Islamic as "Zoroastrian". You are indeed attempting to poison the well now, that much is apparent.
>No, they are not.
Indo-Aryan languages are a direct branch of Indo-Iranian ones, yes they are. What the fuck are you on?
>Indo-Aryans were a separate
No, they were a related group from the other Indo-Iranians; in race, in language, and in customs.
>Mitanni
There is no clear consensus on what the Mitanni were.
>So where did all the Indo-European culture in India come from?
The Indo-Iranians.
>It's the single most basic fact there is about Roman civilization.
A gross simplification.
>>855418
You are insulting me because you have nothing to bring to the table, ad naseum.
>You haven't provided documentation
You haven't provided anything backing up your claims from the start, why should I have to bare the burden of proof when you refuse to own up to it yourself to begin with you hypocritical little shit?
>>855521
>You haven't provided anything backing up your claims from the start
Which ones? I've made two major claims, one of which I've retracted. The other is that you're wrong about a word you seem to think yourself to be an expert on, and which you provided in place of another word. I don't need to provide proof, since I rescinded my first claim many posts ago, but you do need to back up yours, because you're making claims about scholarship that contradicts everything I've read about the referent of the word "Aryan" and the history of Persia.
>>855521
>Civilization is defined by its people.
To get this thread back on track: is this true?
>>852114
Suck a dick and die.
>>852091
Suck two dicks and die.
What I said are all facts. Marxism IS THE "counter culture" of today's society. Anti-state, capital, even religion.
Western culture implies Europe, and it implies Greco-Roman culture and philosophy, and everything of that post antiquity (various European cultures and philosphers).
>>855625
This is going to be an underrated post, I can tell
>>855586
>I don't need to provide proof.
Yes you do.
>because you're making claims about scholarship that contradicts everything I've read about the referent of the world "Aryan" and the history of Persia.
Nonsense, you're doing that: in fact noted Iranian historians and scholars who specialize on Iranian peoples such as Frye and Olmstead have never referred to Iranian civilizations specifically as "Zoroastrian civilizations". when noting pre-Islamic faiths.
>>855598
Civilization: the process by which a society or place reaches an advanced stage of social development and organization.
>>855678
You ARE illiterate, I have said various times that I rescind that claim. You're beating a very dead horse.
The one using the Latin alphabet.
>>855691
>You ARE illterate.
This is ironic coming from the faggot with the frequent spelling errors. Also if you actually read my posts for more then a second you might realize even the topic of the "term of Aryan" has been used consistently with Iranian peoples historically.
Or do you suddenly know better then Professor Olmstead whose spent decades of his life studying and writing about the topic of Iranian history?
>>855700
I just...I don't know what to say anymore, Anon. This reaction image is Reddit-tier but it's the best thing I could find to express my feelings.
Western Civilization refers to the continuous, unbroken tradition of:
Ancient Greece -> Classical Culture -> Christianity -> Feudalism -> Renaissance -> Humanism -> Enlightenment -> Liberal Revolutions
And the nations that have spawned from them
>>855708
>>855634
Why don't you take a page out of Marx's book and kill yourself?
>>851472
The mixture of greco-roman philosophy with judeo-christian theology.
>What is Western civilization?
The successful parts of Europe and the richass anglosphere.
>>855817
It's also the part of Europe that's going to be continually swamped with immigrants and become more Muslim.
Any capitalist country with an HDI score of at least High
>>851476
t. cuck
>>855941
I've always seen it as a technological as well as socioeconomic thing. This helps explain Japan, S. Korea, Hong Kong, etc.
>>855959
didn't mean to reply to you
>>853658
empires are built on the backs of cheap or free labor
>>851472
Civilization in the west.
>>855708
kill yourself
Le evil white men
>>851472
Romanboos.
>>851472
The combination of Greco-Roman aesthetics, culture, and science with Judeo-Christian religion, morality, and ethics.
>>851472
See the opposite of Africa and the middle east.
There ya go.
