@Sonsowey:
Agreed. And good points.
Certainly, populations and people change in history as the result of conquest, colonization, and intermixing. Absolutely.
The problem that always seems to arise in these sort of discussions is that people (not you, I'm just saying in general) can't resist grafting their pet racial theories on top of the very fragmentary hard evidence we have.
One thing that is (in my opinion) supported by history is the idea that peoples from colder climates seem to conquer and assimilate peoples from warmer climates. Or, stated another way, people from the southern climes create the civilizations, and the Northerners conquer them and "reinvigorate" them (for lack of a better word). Geography and climate have had huge influences on history, far more than most people realize.
Examples:
Dorians conquering and assimilating Greeks in remote history
Indo-Aryans (speaking Sanskrit) conquering and dominating the native Dravidian peoples of India
Hyksos conquering and controlling the ancient Egyptians
Mongols conquering Chinese and Middle East
Teutonic German tribes conquering Romans in fourth and fifth centuries
British (arguably!) conquering many parts of the world
The pattern seems to be there. Northerners sweep down from the north, occupying or destroying the civilizations created by the "southern" people. They rejuvenate it, reinvigorate it, and change it. And some new civilization develops.
That's something that I've noticed in my reading of history.
Note: this should not be taken to imply that one group is "superior" to another. Far from it. It only indicates the extent to which geography and climate produce similar behavior patterns on disparate human populations.
.
Agreed. And good points.
Certainly, populations and people change in history as the result of conquest, colonization, and intermixing. Absolutely.
The problem that always seems to arise in these sort of discussions is that people (not you, I'm just saying in general) can't resist grafting their pet racial theories on top of the very fragmentary hard evidence we have.
One thing that is (in my opinion) supported by history is the idea that peoples from colder climates seem to conquer and assimilate peoples from warmer climates. Or, stated another way, people from the southern climes create the civilizations, and the Northerners conquer them and "reinvigorate" them (for lack of a better word). Geography and climate have had huge influences on history, far more than most people realize.
Examples:
Dorians conquering and assimilating Greeks in remote history
Indo-Aryans (speaking Sanskrit) conquering and dominating the native Dravidian peoples of India
Hyksos conquering and controlling the ancient Egyptians
Mongols conquering Chinese and Middle East
Teutonic German tribes conquering Romans in fourth and fifth centuries
British (arguably!) conquering many parts of the world
The pattern seems to be there. Northerners sweep down from the north, occupying or destroying the civilizations created by the "southern" people. They rejuvenate it, reinvigorate it, and change it. And some new civilization develops.
That's something that I've noticed in my reading of history.
Note: this should not be taken to imply that one group is "superior" to another. Far from it. It only indicates the extent to which geography and climate produce similar behavior patterns on disparate human populations.
.