http://www.gnxp.com/new/2009/08/23/the-origins-of-china/ Genetics Tue, 03 Apr 2018 05:20:42 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=3.8.27 http://www.gnxp.com/new/2009/08/23/the-origins-of-china/#comment-22854 Wed, 26 Aug 2009 00:13:33 +0000 #comment-22854 “But by the time of the Rise of Nations in 1830-1848, Western Europe clearly saw the Greeks as part of “us”. Of course, the involvement of an unambiguous “them” (the Ottomans) certainly helped.” 
 
Wasn’t the ardent Phihellenism of Western Europeans hugely diminished by their actual encounters with contemporary Greeks? I recall reading that they were bitterly disappointed, and for this reason devised outlandish claims about the ancient Greeks having been displaced by short and swarthy Slavs. 
 
If this is so, then I think Western Europe most likely sided with the Greeks as Christians, as opposed to Ottoman Muslims, rather than feeling a profound sense of natural affinity with them.

]]> http://www.gnxp.com/new/2009/08/23/the-origins-of-china/#comment-22855 Tue, 25 Aug 2009 01:27:05 +0000 #comment-22855 Well, America united Europeans into homogenous white people.  
 
If by “America” you mean the joint spread of Christianity and Hellenistic culture, then you might have a point. 
 
Admittedly, the division between Western+Central (Latin) and Eastern (Greek/Slavic) Europe was quite deep and lasted for some time, as indicated by the sack of Constantinople by Latin crusaders. But by the time of the Rise of Nations in 1830-1848, Western Europe clearly saw the Greeks as part of “us”. Of course, the involvement of an unambiguous “them” (the Ottomans) certainly helped. 
 
Note that even today, national identities still take precedence over the sense of common Europeanness (even though the latter is still very real). So I’m not sure “homegeneous” is the right word. 
 
It seems to me that Europe is, and has always been, very similar to China in the Warring States period – just even more heterogeneous than that (I’m ready to guess there was much less difference between the languages of Wu and Qin than between Finnish and Greek).  
 
The major differences are: 
 
1- Our presumptive Qin (leaders that would unify the area by force) have either failed (Napoleon, Hitler) or have had their empires divided after their death (Charlemagne). 
 
2- We got rid of the “Warring” part – though that’s admittedly quite recent.

]]> http://www.gnxp.com/new/2009/08/23/the-origins-of-china/#comment-22856 Mon, 24 Aug 2009 20:40:25 +0000 #comment-22856 western europe before the reformation might be appropriate analogy to china culturally. the intellgensia could speak to each other because of latin. in fact, this persisted long enough that hungarian protestant students at oxford could make due on latin during the 16th century without english.

]]> http://www.gnxp.com/new/2009/08/23/the-origins-of-china/#comment-22857 Mon, 24 Aug 2009 09:08:53 +0000 #comment-22857 Han Chinese idendity was formed during Han dysnasty. Before that, China was like Europe continent. Well, America united Europeans into homogenous white people. Great wall of Han united Han speaking people into Han.

]]>