BBC's Top Gear hosts make racist comments about Mexicans.

The fact that this thread is still gong on depresses me.

To the person going on about the Mayans inventing written language. The Chinese had written language around 6600 BCE and the Sumerians had written language around 3000 BC.

To the person going on about the Mayans inventing written language. The Chinese had written language around 6600 BCE and the Sumerians had written language around 3000 BC.

Vesica_Prime

I said, INDEPENDENTLY invented a written language. By that I mean that they devised a written language without ever having encountered a culture that possessed such knowledge. This is an exceedingly rare development in human history. Yes, other people across the ocean developed their own written language at earlier dates, but that does not diminish the Maya accomplishment of having independently developed their own text.

Allow me to reiterate: THIS NEVER HAPPENED IN EUROPE. Europeans were only able to copy and imitate literary developments from Asia and Africa.

As for the Chinese having written language in 6600 BC, that is plainly incorrect. I might grant you 1500 BC, but 6600 BC is incorrect.

[QUOTE="Vesica_Prime"]

To the person going on about the Mayans inventing written language. The Chinese had written language around 6600 BCE and the Sumerians had written language around 3000 BC.

dkrustyklown

Allow me to reiterate: THIS NEVER HAPPENED IN EUROPE. Europeans were only able to copy and imitate literary developments from Asia and Africa.

They built quite well on that though didn't they? =P

They built quite well on that though didn't they? =P

mywalletsgone

You mean that the United States built quite well on that, considering that Europe was an absolute wreck after WWII and would still be a wreck without the Marshall Plan, right?

EDIT: Which brings up what I think that the US should have done at the end of WWII, which was to use the nuclear advantage to obliterate the USSR for good and never help rebuild the rest of Europe, leaving it in ruins.

[QUOTE="mywalletsgone"]

They built quite well on that though didn't they? =P

dkrustyklown

You mean that the United States built quite well on that, considering that Europe was an absolute wreck after WWII and would still be a wreck without the Marshall Plan, right?

[QUOTE="mywalletsgone"]

They built quite well on that though didn't they? =P

dkrustyklown

You mean that the United States built quite well on that, considering that Europe was an absolute wreck after WWII and would still be a wreck without the Marshall Plan, right?

Light speed ahead!!

I'm afraid you've not so much as crossed the line of what I was getting as pole vaulted over it instead so erm, k bro =]

I don't really understand the point here. The United States was born out of European empires. Culturally, the United States was a Western European nation.Danm_999

Let me explain. I'm commenting on Europe's current state of prosperity and high standard of living. Without the Marshall Plan, Europe wouldn't be so nice today.

[QUOTE="Danm_999"] I don't really understand the point here. The United States was born out of European empires. Culturally, the United States was a Western European nation.dkrustyklown

Let me explain. I'm commenting on Europe's current state of prosperity and high standard of living. Without the Marshall Plan, Europe wouldn't be so nice today.

And my point was, Europe has also helped cultivate the freedom and high standard of living within the United States. You can go back all the way to the Revolutionary War and find that the French and the Dutch helped finance the colonists drive for freedom. What I'm trying to say is, the United States and Europe are two pillars of propserity and liberty that have often relied upon each other in times of crisis.Danm_999

The United States has never needed Europe. It annoys me that my government over the last century has beant over backwards to aid and assist Europe, receiving little if anything in return.

Ok, fine, France helped us out, and so did Spain, but that was one time.

When the US needed help in Vietnam, do you know what the British did? They send the Australians, instead (no offense to the fine Australian fighters). So, instead of helping out themselves, the British send their poxies...wonderful...what a great alliance, yay!

I don't see a give/take relationship here. All I see is take.

The United States has never needed Europe.dkrustyklown

Well, yes it has. Especially in its early history. It needed European allies to protect it from Native Americans in its early history, and (perversely) it needed European powers to protect it from other Europeans.

Ok, fine, France helped us out, and so did Spain, but that was one time.dkrustyklown

So, the USA did at one time need their help. To exist.

When the US needed help in Vietnam, do you know what the British do? They send the Australians, instead (no offense to the fine Australian fighters). So, instead of helping out themselves, the British send their poxies...wonderful...what a great alliance, yay!dkrustyklown

Err, Britain hasn't controlled Australia's military since WW2. So Britain did not send Australia to do anything.

Australia went of its own volition, and Britain did not or could not tell Australia to do anything.

I know this because I'm Australian. It's also nice to see how highly the military commitments of one of your most faithful allies is held in the highest of esteems.

I don't see a give/take relationship here. All I see is take.

dkrustyklown

So British support in Afghanistan, Iraq, the Gulf War, Korea, pretty much every conflict except for Vietnam, and French support in Afghanistan, the Gulf War, Korea, Vietnam (they were fighting the Viet Cong before the US even arrived) means nothing?

I'm sorry, there's been much more cooperation that there has been abandonment.

I'm sorry, there's been much more cooperation that there has been abandonment.

Danm_999

I would have liked more abandonment, at least on our part. Why did the US rebuild Europe and Japan? Sure, some folks say that it was to keep the USSR from taking over, but in the years immediately following WWII, the US could have just used its nuclear advantage to settle the issue more quickly and cheaply.

[QUOTE="Danm_999"]

I'm sorry, there's been much more cooperation that there has been abandonment.

dkrustyklown

I would have liked more abandonment, at least on our part. Why did the US rebuild Europe and Japan? Sure, some folks say that it was to keep the USSR from taking over, but in the years immediately following WWII, the US could have just used its nuclear advantage to settle the issue more quickly and cheaply.

I'm fairly sure the good ol' U.S of A had Europe on quick dial in the case things got messy during the missile crisis! =D

So British support in Afghanistan, Iraq, the Gulf War, Korea, pretty much every conflict except for Vietnam, and French support in Afghanistan, the Gulf War, Korea, Vietnam (they were fighting the Viet Cong before the US even arrived) means nothing?

Danm_999

Lets talk about Afghanistan, then. Lets take a look at the timeline, with a particular emphasis on causality. It was the British that messed the middle east up in the first place. I believe that it was under British auspices that Palestine was flooded with Jewish refugees against the wishes of the native Palestinians who complained about the simple fact that there just wasn't enough room for everyone. Yeah, that's right, it was a big British boondoggle, wasn't it? Had the British not messed the place up in the first place, there would have been no Israel, no Arab-Israeli war, no US support for Israel, and no Al Qaeda. The Arab world would have continued plodding along like it had for centuries and we would have simply purchased petroleum from them. There wouldn't have been all this hate, bombing, beheading, lalalalala nonsense that we're dealing with now.

EDIT: Had the British simply left the Ottoman Empire alone, none of this would have happened, either.

Did you change your signature as well? I could be mistaken. But that gives the impression you're really upset!!

[QUOTE="Danm_999"]

So British support in Afghanistan, Iraq, the Gulf War, Korea, pretty much every conflict except for Vietnam, and French support in Afghanistan, the Gulf War, Korea, Vietnam (they were fighting the Viet Cong before the US even arrived) means nothing?

dkrustyklown

Lets talk about Afghanistan, then. Lets take a look at the timeline, with a particular emphasis on causality. It was the British that messed the middle east up in the first place. I believe that it was under British auspices that Palestine was flooded with Jewish refugees against the wishes of the native Palestinians who complained about the simple fact that there just wasn't enough room for everyone. Yeah, that's right, it was a big British boondoggle, wasn't it? Had the British not messed the place up in the first place, there would have been no Israel, no Arab-Israeli war, no US support for Israel, and no Al Qaeda. The Arab world would have continued plodding along like it had for centuries and we would have simply purchased petroleum from them. There wouldn't have been all this hate, bombing, beheading, lalalalala nonsense that we're dealing with now.

But yes, Britain didn't stabilise the modern Middle East, and did much to make it unstable. Though the USA of course has its own share of responsibility in making the situation worse too though; using the Shah of Iran, arming the Taliban to fight Russia, initially supporting Saddam Hussein hoping that he'd combat Iran, and not to mention, the USA has been the staunchest ally of Israel in history; without the USA's support, it probably wouldn't exist.

But are you going to say they're bad allies because a hundred years ago they did things that have made problems today, in spite of their support in almost every military conflict for the last 100 years, I think you're ungratefullness is once again rearing its head.

EDIT: Had the British simply left the Ottoman Empire alone, none of this would have happened, either.

dkrustyklown

Err, yes it would have. The Ottoman Empire was crumbling under its own weight long before Britain took control after WW1, it was "the sick man of Europe". It was really just a question of who would carve it up.

Danm_999

At the slow rate that it was decaying, it would still be decaying today. The Ottoman Empire was the "sick man" for a really long time. Furthermore, I do have faith that the Turks would have snapped out of it and solidified their position anyways. They put up a stiff resistance to the British in the Dardanelles, remember. They're the Turks, man, they could subjugate the middle east with sheer ferocity. It's what they did in the past.

[QUOTE="Danm_999"]

Err, yes it would have. The Ottoman Empire was crumbling under its own weight long before Britain took control after WW1, it was "the sick man of Europe". It was really just a question of who would carve it up.

dkrustyklown

At the slow rate that it was decaying, it would still be decaying today. The Ottoman Empire was the "sick man" for a really long time. Furthermore, I do have faith that the Turks would have snapped out of it and solidified their position anyways. They put up a stiff resistance to the British in the Dardanelles, remember. They're the Turks, man, they could subjugate the middle east with sheer ferocity. It's what they did in the past.

Anyways, my main point towards this thread is something about glass houses and stones to throw.

Turkey was either going to crumble due to an outside empire breaking them apart, or buckle from dozens of small internal national movements splitting it apart. Danm_999

...and none of those solutions involve the creation of an Israeli state that would be the source of endless conflict for the rest of time. I would have picked either of those over what actually happenned.

It's Top Gear. If you're offended by anything these guys say, then I guess you should probably lighten up.

[QUOTE="Danm_999"] Turkey was either going to crumble due to an outside empire breaking them apart, or buckle from dozens of small internal national movements splitting it apart. dkrustyklown

...and none of those solutions involve the creation of an Israeli state that would be the source of endless conflict for the rest of time. I would have picked either of those over what actually happenned.

I also don't necessarily disagree with the idea that Israel is becoming a burden for the United States.

Anyways, my main point towards this thread is something about glass houses and stones to throw.

dkrustyklown

Do you live in a neighbourhood full of glass houses then? Your neighbours must be angry at all the stones you throw =[

I also don't necessarily disagree with the idea that Israel is becoming a burden for the United States.

Danm_999

I've been saying that we should cut our losses and throw them under the bus for decades.

Well, the latter that might be true, self determinist Palestinians wouldn't have created Israel, but an outside power was always likely to court a fledgling Israeli state, especially since so many Israelis migrated from Europe.

Danm_999

Well, if that outside power had been the USSR, I don't think Israel would have lasted until today. I don't think that a communist Isreal smack in the middle east would have much chance for survival.

i just noticed...if you came here first to complain about a racist joke...why do you have that quote as a sig?

Dr_Manfattan

Well, I changed the sig, but I must still ask.

What is racist about the quote, "I speak Spanish to God, Italian to women, French to men, and German to my horse."?

To provide some context, in that quote, Carlos V was boasting about his linguistic ability, which was necessary for his position because he ruled over such a diverse empire.

[QUOTE="Dr_Manfattan"]

i just noticed...if you came here first to complain about a racist joke...why do you have that quote as a sig?

dkrustyklown

Well, I changed the sig, but I must still ask.

What is racist about the quote, "I speak Spanish to God, Italian to women, French to men, and German to my horse."?

To provide some context, in that quote, Carlos V was boasting about his linguistic ability, which was necessary for his position because he ruled over such a diverse empire.

Carlos, or Charles, was also a great ruler of Europe.

Did you see that?

Carlos, or Charles, was also a great ruler of Europe.

Did you see that?

mywalletsgone

He was a Dutchman, too.

I was born in Europe as well. Imagine that. I definitely love the European state that is my motherland, but I hold no pretensions of a higher worthiness and I defintely don't get my rocks off by cracking jokes at the expense of the developing world, as seems to be common in British media.

[QUOTE="mywalletsgone"]

Carlos, or Charles, was also a great ruler of Europe.

Did you see that?

dkrustyklown

He was a Dutchman, too.

I was born in Europe as well. Imagine that. I definitely love the European state that is my motherland, but I hold no pretensions of a higher worthiness and I defintely don't get my rocks off by cracking jokes at the expense of the developing world, as seems to be common in British media.

I know, I know. Shame isn't it, those filthy crooked toothed Brits.

I just found it rather amusing you had a quote by the leader of a great European family while "hurling stones" at Europe in terms of their contribution to America as a whole.

Also close, but Flemish doesn't quite equal to Dutch. He was Belgian born.

I know, I know. Shame isn't it, those filthy crooked toothed Brits.

I just found it rather amusing you had a quote by the leader of a great European family while "hurling stones" at Europe in terms of their contribution to America as a whole.

Also close, but Flemish doesn't quite equal to Dutch. He was Belgian born.

mywalletsgone

Well, there was no Belgium or Netherlands when he was born. It wasn't really defined back then, so you could say he was both.

Also, the Europe of the XVI century is not the same Europe of the XXI century, either. So my admiration for great European rulers of the past has no bearing on what comes out of Europe these days. I have a deep respect for many European cultures: Spain, Italy, Greece, Germany, France, and so on. I even have a certain measure of resentful admiration for the achievements of the British: Waterloo, Darwin, Newton, The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, and so on.

But I find British ridicule of the Hispanic world to be particularly grating to my ears and requiring of a response.

[QUOTE="Vesica_Prime"]

To the person going on about the Mayans inventing written language. The Chinese had written language around 6600 BCE and the Sumerians had written language around 3000 BC.

dkrustyklown

I said, INDEPENDENTLY invented a written language. By that I mean that they devised a written language without ever having encountered a culture that possessed such knowledge. This is an exceedingly rare development in human history. Yes, other people across the ocean developed their own written language at earlier dates, but that does not diminish the Maya accomplishment of having independently developed their own text.

Allow me to reiterate: THIS NEVER HAPPENED IN EUROPE. Europeans were only able to copy and imitate literary developments from Asia and Africa.

As for the Chinese having written language in 6600 BC, that is plainly incorrect. I might grant you 1500 BC, but 6600 BC is incorrect.

Really?

And indepentently? China was virtually isolated from the rest of the world until the Silk Road was made. You can't really get more independant than isolation.

So where would you draw the line on what comedians are and aren't allowed to say?nintendo_ds_06

[QUOTE="mywalletsgone"]

I know, I know. Shame isn't it, those filthy crooked toothed Brits.

I just found it rather amusing you had a quote by the leader of a great European family while "hurling stones" at Europe in terms of their contribution to America as a whole.

Also close, but Flemish doesn't quite equal to Dutch. He was Belgian born.

dkrustyklown

Well, there was no Belgium or Netherlands when he was born. It wasn't really defined back then, so you could say he was both.

Also, the Europe of the XVI century is not the same Europe of the XXI century, either. So my admiration for great European rulers of the past has no bearing on what comes out of Europe these days. I have a deep respect for many European cultures: Spain, Italy, Greece, Germany, France, and so on. I even have a certain measure of resentful admiration for the achievements of the British: Waterloo, Darwin, Newton, The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, and so on.

But I find British ridicule of the Hispanic world to be particularly grating to my ears and requiring of a response.

Then you just got mega trolled by Clarkson and company I'm afraid!

As for the whole Belgian-Dutch thing, he was technically French born under the ruling of the region of that time. But really, if you're going to pay tribute to past European rulers, then I suppose I should do the same for great American rulers before the XVI century...

Oh wait there was no great rulers of note. I suppose I should just spit on American culture as a whole then, shouldn't I? I mean, considering what comes out of there today. But I won't, seeing as I'm far more open minded than that.

Goodnight =D

Really?

And indepentently? China was virtually isolated from the rest of the world until the Silk Road was made. You can't really get more independant than isolation.

Vesica_Prime

It's not a measure of who developed a written language more independently. It is not a continuum. It's either independent or it's not. It's not a case of, "mine's more independent than yours".

By the way, the article that you cite challenges itself. You should try reading more than the headline.

Also, there is little reason to believe that Chinese script was independently invented, considering that Indus script preceded it and was probably its source.

Then you just got mega trolled by Clarkson and company I'm afraid!

As for the whole Belgian-Dutch thing, he was technically French born under the ruling of the region of that time. But really, if you're going to pay tribute to past European rulers, then I suppose I should do the same for great American rulers before the XVI century...

Oh wait there was no great rulers of note. I suppose I should just spit on American culture as a whole then, shouldn't I? I mean, considering what comes out of there today. But I won't, seeing as I'm far more open minded than that.

Goodnight =D

mywalletsgone

No great rulers of note? What about Pachacuti?

I laughed. It's just Top Gear doing what they do best; offending people.PS2_ROCKS

[QUOTE="mywalletsgone"]

Then you just got mega trolled by Clarkson and company I'm afraid!

As for the whole Belgian-Dutch thing, he was technically French born under the ruling of the region of that time. But really, if you're going to pay tribute to past European rulers, then I suppose I should do the same for great American rulers before the XVI century...

Oh wait there was no great rulers of note. I suppose I should just spit on American culture as a whole then, shouldn't I? I mean, considering what comes out of there today. But I won't, seeing as I'm far more open minded than that.

Goodnight =D

dkrustyklown

No great rulers of note? What about Pachacuti?

I'll humor you a little bit more, tried to look him up on google and got no results =S

Compared to the many European monarchs and rulers though I'm sure it's no matter. I'm sure on the grand scale of things he's relegated below the rulers who've treaded down Europe's decorated historical hall.

[QUOTE="nintendo_ds_06"]So where would you draw the line on what comedians are and aren't allowed to say?KungfuKitten

Oh anything goes in comedy...

YouTube - Ricky Gervais: Little girl and her father

[QUOTE="Vesica_Prime"]

Really?

And indepentently? China was virtually isolated from the rest of the world until the Silk Road was made. You can't really get more independant than isolation.

dkrustyklown

It's not a measure of who developed a written language more independently. It is not a continuum. It's either independent or it's not. It's not a case of, "mine's more independent than yours".

By the way, the article that you cite challenges itself. You should try reading more than the headline.

Also, there is little reason to believe that Chinese script was independently invented, considering that Indus script preceded it and was probably its source.

What can you say about this then?

Another source saying that the Chinese language was started around 6000 BC, around 3400 years before the Indus script.

[QUOTE="KungfuKitten"][QUOTE="nintendo_ds_06"]So where would you draw the line on what comedians are and aren't allowed to say?poptart

Oh anything goes in comedy...

YouTube - Ricky Gervais: Little girl and her father

[QUOTE="mywalletsgone"]

Carlos, or Charles, was also a great ruler of Europe.

Did you see that?

dkrustyklown

He was a Dutchman, too.

I was born in Europe as well. Imagine that. I definitely love the European state that is my motherland, but I hold no pretensions of a higher worthiness and I defintely don't get my rocks off by cracking jokes at the expense of the developing world, as seems to be common in British media.

It seems people who don't like jokes about horrible things also have a serious lack of self-ridicule. Humor keeps you in check. Being serious about things does not exclude laughing about them.

edit: I should create some tiles with some of quotes of mine.

[QUOTE="mywalletsgone"]

Carlos, or Charles, was also a great ruler of Europe.

Did you see that?

dkrustyklown

He was a Dutchman, too.

I was born in Europe as well. Imagine that. I definitely love the European state that is my motherland, but I hold no pretensions of a higher worthiness and I defintely don't get my rocks off by cracking jokes at the expense of the developing world, as seems to be common in British media.

They don't just create jokes about the devloping world though it's about everyone it's how British humor works.

British humour on being purposely offensive in jokes for comdeic purpose http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SagayzX2T7Y

This is British humour on the American presidential election. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtCcD6X91XE

This British Humour about Scotland http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zxNTbsU4ns&feature=related

This is British Humour on Tv about being Blind http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67Un2uROOFI&feature=related(Probably the most offensive one)