There IS NO EUROPE.
I hope you guys are aware that Europe isnt even really a real continent.
Europe is LITERALLY… wait for it… WEST ASIA.
Sounda strange hu?
There is no land mass separation, no tectonic plate devide, no water that separates anything.
Europe, LITERALLY, exists only in the mind of people who wish to differentiate one socioeconomic slash sociodemographic group from another, i.e, darks from lights.
Yep. Pointy eyes from roundy eyes.
Blonde hair and blue eyes from no blonde hair and blue eyes, or green. whatever…
There IS NO EUROPE.
No Europe. West Asia.
Like, fucking Middle easterns coming over to our country and yada yada yada .. Middle East what? Middle East Asia. 🙂
I mean like.. you all cant be this stupid.
Asia. Europeans are, by continetal classification, West Asian. Period.
DO YOU GET IT NOW?
I knew this when I was 19.
What the fuck are all of you talking about.
In the words of Manu Chao, “Sometimes I dream about reality.”
E1b1b1 = 10.7% (Akdenizli)
G = 10.9% (Orta dogu ve Kafkas)
I = 5.3% (Orta Avrupa, Bati Kafkas ve Balkan )
J1 = 9% (Dagistan ve Arap)
J2 = 24% (Bati Asya, Guney-Dogu Avrupa, Orta ve Guney Asya)
K = 4.5% (Asya ve Kafkas)
L = 4.2% (Hindistan ve Iran)
N = 3.8% (Dogru Avrupa ve Sirbistan)
Q = 1.9% (Kuzey Asya ve Altan toplumlari, Ural daglari)
R1a = 6.9% (Orta Asya, Kafkas, Dogru Avrupa ve Hint-Iranli gruplar)
R1b = 14.7% (Bati Avrupa)
T = 2.5% (Akdeniz, Guney Asya ve Kuzey Arika)
*J2, R1b, G, E1b1b1 en yuksek ortlama bunlarda.*
Simdi bunlar Anadolunun (Turkiyenin) genetik.
Kalani siz dusunun…
Kurtlere, ve Cerkeslere, ve Ermenilere, ve Herbirkimselere soysuz diyenlere gelsin.
Tepkilerinizi bana aglamayin, bu bilimsel bir arastirma, Cengiz Cinnioğlu, R. King, Toomas Kivisild, E. Kalfoğlu, S. Atasoy, G. L. Cavalleri, A. S. Lillie, C. C. Roseman, A. A. Lin, K. Prince, P. J. Oefner, P. Shen, Ornella Semino, Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, ve Peter A. Underhill’a yazin aglayin. Kitabin adi “Excavating Y-chromosome haplotype strata in Anatolia.”
Ocak 2004 basimi, Human Genetics makelenin 114 sayfasi, 2. paragrafi. 127-148 sayfalarinda.
Feeding 7 billion
How food impacts communities around the world
Food connects us, and at the same time helps shape our identity.
That’s the narrative Seattle-based photographer Michael Hanson tries to show in his ongoing series, Feeding 7 Billion. He documents food’s scarcity and abundance, the communities and rituals that surround it, and how it affects our planet.
For two months in 2010, Hanson traveled around the United States with his brother and friend in a short school bus that ran on vegetable oil, collecting stories and photos of America’s urban farming and local food movement. He saw the foundations of communities built on local farms. He saw teenage mothers in Detroit spend part of the school day on a working farm. And he witnessed New Orleans’ resilient Versailles community create makeshift backyard farms in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.
Since then, Hanson’s photography has grown to include more international stories of food: tea field workers in Sumatra, Indonesia; salt ponds in Maras, Peru; daily rationing in certain parts of Cuba; and women selling their last chickens at a Chichicastenango, Guatemala market in order to support their families.
“Where our food comes from was an obvious mission,” Hanson tells Mashable. “Food hits on multiple fronts. It defines our community. Food signals changes in tradition, history, geography. You can find out a lot about a country or culture by eating its food.”
Documenting where food comes from helps shine a light on world hunger and climate change — the haves vs. the have-nots, thriving landscapes vs. withering resources.
Hunger kills more people each year than AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis combined, according to the United Nations World Food Programme. The latest statistics show that approximately 805 million people do not have access to enough food to lead healthy, active lives. In the developing world, one in six children is underweight and 66 million primary school-age children attend classes hungry. And if female farmers had the same access to resources as male farmers, it could eliminate hunger for up to 150 million people.
A comprehensive 2014 report from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) showed that climate change is beginning to drag down crop yields and poses a large threat to food security in the coming decades. Hunger and malnutrition could increase by up to 20% by 2050 as a result of climate change, according to the World Food Programme, as the world population skyrockets to an estimated 9.6 billion, driven largely by rapid rates of population growth in areas where food security is already a challenge, such as sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia.
But people around the world are working to reshape our food system, whether it’s on farms, in backyards and public spaces, or in their very homes. That’s what Hanson hopes to do with his work: capture the people who see the connection between a healthy planet and sustainable food, and inspire those who see his photographs to do the same.
“Food has a story,” Hanson says. “Maybe it’s of landscape or people, environmentally positive or detrimental, but all our food has a story, and each one is unique.”
Gandhi’s 1940 letter to Adolf Hitler: Seek peace or someone will ‘beat you with your own weapon
Mohandas Gandhi, frequently known by the honorific Mahatma (meaning “great soul”), was famous for advocating civil disobedience and nonviolence to achieve his goals.
Starting in 1921, Gandhi led the Indian independence movement through such methods, finally achieving freedom from the British empire in 1947, just six months before his death.
Less known is Gandhi’s efforts through a series of letters in 1939 and 1940 to keep German dictator Adolf Hitler from starting a war in Europe.
Gandhi took it upon himself to prevent World War II by not only encouraging Hitler to seek peace but also by telling the British people to oppose Hitler and Italy’s Benito Mussolini by nonviolent means, even as Nazi Germany and Italy sought to destroy the country.
“In nonviolent technique, as I have said, there is no such thing as defeat. It is all ‘do or die’ without killing or hurting,” Gandhi wrote to Hitler. “It can be used practically without money and obviously without the aid of science of destruction which you have brought to such perfection.
“It is a marvel to me that you do not see that it is nobody’s monopoly. If not the British, some other power will certainly improve upon your method and beat you with your own weapon. You are leaving no legacy to your people of which they would feel proud.”
Here is the full version, which is the longer of Gandhi’s two letters to Hitler:
That I address you as a friend is no formality. I own no foes. My business in life has been for the past 33 years to enlist the friendship of the whole of humanity by befriending mankind, irrespective of race, colour or creed.
I hope you will have the time and desire to know how a good portion of humanity who have view living under the influence of that doctrine of universal friendship view your action. We have no doubt about your bravery or devotion to your fatherland, nor do we believe that you are the monster described by your opponents. But your own writings and pronouncements and those of your friends and admirers leave no room for doubt that many of your acts are monstrous and unbecoming of human dignity, especially in the estimation of men like me who believe in universal friendliness. Such are your humiliation of Czechoslovakia, the rape of Poland and the swallowing of Denmark. I am aware that your view of life regards such spoliations as virtuous acts. But we have been taught from childhood to regard them as acts degrading humanity. Hence we cannot possibly wish success to your arms.
But ours is a unique position. We resist British Imperialism no less than Nazism. If there is a difference, it is in degree. One-fifth of the human race has been brought under the British heel by means that will not bear scrutiny. Our resistance to it does not mean harm to the British people. We seek to convert them, not to defeat them on the battlefield. Ours is an unarmed revolt against the British rule. But whether we convert them or not, we are determined to make their rule impossible by non-violent non-co-operation. It is a method in its nature indefensible. It is based on the knowledge that no spoliation can compass his end without a certain degree of co-operation, willing or compulsory, of the victim. Our rulers may have our land and bodies but not our souls. They can have the former only by complete destruction of every Indian—man, woman and child. That all may not rise to that degree of heroism and that a fair amount of frightfulness can bend the back of revolt is true but the argument would be beside the point. For, if a fair number of men and women be found in India who would be prepared without any ill will against the spoliators to lay down their lives rather than bend the knee to them, they would have shown the way to freedom from the tyranny of violence. I ask you to believe me when I say that you will find an unexpected number of such men and women in India. They have been having that training for the past 20 years.
We have been trying for the past half a century to throw off the British rule. The movement of independence has been never so strong as now. The most powerful political organisation, I mean the Indian National Congress, is trying to achieve this end. We have attained a very fair measure of success through non-violent effort. We were groping for the right means to combat the most organised violence in the world which the British power represents. You have challenged it. It remains to be seen which is the better organised, the German or the British. We know what the British heel means for us and the non-European races of the world. But we would never wish to end the British rule with German aid. We have found in non-violence a force which, if organised, can, without doubt, match itself against a combination of all the most violent forces in the world. In non-violent technique, as I have said, there is no such thing as defeat. It is all ‘do or die’ without killing or hurting. It can be used practically without money and obviously without the aid of science of destruction which you have brought to such perfection. It is a marvel to me that you do not see that it is nobody’s monopoly. If not the British, some other power will certainly improve upon your method and beat you with your own weapon. You are leaving no legacy to your people of which they would feel proud. They cannot take pride in a recital of a cruel deed, however skilfully planned. I, therefore, appeal to you in the name of humanity to stop the war. You will lose nothing by referring all the matters of dispute between you and Great Britain to an international tribunal of your joint choice. If you attain success in the war, it will not prove that you were in the right. It will only prove that your power of destruction was greater. Whereas an award by an impartial tribunal will show as far as it is humanly possible which party was in the right.
You know that not long ago I made an appeal to every Briton to accept my method of non-violent resistance. I did it because the British know me as a friend though a rebel. I am a stranger to you and your people. I have not the courage to make you the appeal I made to every Briton. Not that it would not apply to you with the same force as to the British. But my present proposal is much simple because much more practical and familiar.
During this season when the hearts of the peoples of Europe yearn for peace, we have suspended even our own peaceful struggle. Is it too much to ask you to make an effort for peace during a time which may mean nothing to you personally but which must mean much to the millions of Europeans whose dumb cry for peace I hear, for my ears are attended to hearing the dumb millions? I had intended to address a joint appeal to you and Signor Mussolini, whom I had the privilege of meeting when I was in Rome during my visit to England as a delegate to the Round Table Conference. I hope that he will take this as addressed to him also with the necessary changes.
Sioux Indian Chief
1) Praise, flattery, exaggerated manners and fine, high-sounding words were no part of Lakota politeness. Excessive manners were put down as insincere, and the constant talker was considered rude and thoughtless. The conversation was never begun at once, or in a hurried manner.
2) Children were taught that true politeness was to be defined in actions rather than in words. They were never allowed to pass between the fire and the older person or a visitor, to speak while others were speaking, or to make fun of a crippled or disfigured person. If a child thoughtlessly tried to do so, a parent, in a quiet voice, immediately set him right.
3) Silence was meaningful with the Lakota, and his granting a space of silence before talking was done in the practice of true politeness and regardful of the rule that ‘thought comes before speech.’…and in the midst of sorrow, sickness, death or misfortune of any kind, and in the presence of the notable and great, silence was the mark of respect… strict observance of this tenet of good behaviour was the reason, no doubt, for his being given the false characterization by the white man of being a stoic. He has been judged to be dumb, stupid, indifferent, and unfeeling.
4) We did not think of the great open plains, the beautiful rolling hills, the winding streams with tangled growth, as ‘wild’. Only to the white man was nature a ‘wilderness’ and only to him was it ‘infested’ with ‘wild’ animals and ‘savage’ people. To us it was tame. Earth was bountiful and we were surrounded with the blessings of the Great Mystery.
5) With all creatures of the earth, sky and water were a real and active principle. In the animal and bird world there existed a brotherly feeling that kept the Lakota safe among them. And so close did some of the Lakotas come to their feathered and furred friends that in true brotherhood they spoke a common tongue.
6) This concept of life and its relations was humanising and gave to the Lakota an abiding love. It filled his being with the joy and mystery of living; it gave him a reverence for all life; it made a place for all things in the scheme of existence with equal importance to all.
7) It was good for the skin to touch the earth, and the old people liked to remove their moccasins and walk with bare feet on the sacred earth… the old Indian still sits upon the earth instead of propping himself up and away from its life-giving forces. For him, to sit or lie upon the ground is to be able to think more deeply and to feel more keenly. He can see more clearly into the mysteries of life and come closer in kinship to other lives about him.
8) Everything was possessed of personality, only differing from us in form. Knowledge was inherent in all things. The world was a library and its books were the stones, leaves, grass, brooks, and the birds and animals that shared, alike with us, the storms and blessings of the earth. We learned to do what only the student of nature learns, and that was to feel beauty. We never railed at the storms, the furious winds, and the biting frosts and snows. To do so intensified human futility, so whatever came we adjusted ourselves, by more effort and energy if necessary, but without complaint.
9) …the old Lakota was wise. He knew that a man’s heart, away from nature, becomes hard; he knew that lack of respect for growing, living things soon led to a lack of respect for humans, too. So he kept his children close to nature’s softening influence.
10) Civilisation has been thrust upon me… and it has not added one whit to my love for truth, honesty, and generosity.I hope some of these quotes have moved you and influenced you the way they have for me. It seems as though our modern culture could use a little guidance from ancient wisdom.
Originally seen on Wisdom Pills
Paradigms Beyond Civilisation
No paradigm is ever able to imagine the next one.
It’s almost impossible for one paradigm to imagine that there will even be a next one. The people of the Middle Ages didn’t think of themselves as being in the “middle” of anything at all. As far as they were concerned, the way they were living was the way people would be living until the end of time.
Even if you’d managed to persuade them that a new era was just around the corner, they would’ve been unable to tell you a single thing about it—and in particular, they wouldn’t have been able to tell you what was going to make it new. If they’d been able to describe the Renaissance in the fourteenth century, it would have been the #Renaissance. We’re no different. For all our blather of new paradigms and emerging paradigms, it’s an unassailable assumption among us that our distant descendants will be just exactly like us.
Their gadgets, fashions, music, and so on, will surely be different, but we’re confident that their mindset will be identical—because we can imagine no other mindset for people to have. But in fact, if we actually manage to survive here, it will be because we’ve moved into a new era as different from ours as the Renaissance was from the #Middle Ages—and as unimaginable to us as the Renaissance was to the Middle Ages.