But yet it's a disease born in Europe, a continent whose history is defined by centuries of conquest, assimilation, and shifting borders.

Why? The very concept of distinct "nations" or "peoples" in Europe is largely a retroactive construction crafted to make sense of regions where ethnic boundaries have long been blurred beyond recognition. Take the British Isles, for example. It's an island where Celts, Romans, Angles, Saxons, Danes, and Normans all arrived, ruled, and intermingled. Who exactly are the "British" today, if not a fusion of these ethnics?

On the continent, the story is even more entangled. The Romans once ruled the entire Mediterranean, but after centuries of intermarriage, collapse, and migration, they vanished—not wiped out, but absorbed—into the very populations they once conquered. The modern "Italians" are not Romans reborn but rather a product of that historical blending.

Yes, centuries of war, conquest, destruction, and rape, any coherent sense of "ethnicity" in Europe had been wiped out. Nationalism didn’t arrive from outside. it was born out of that wreckage
That’s why the word nation came to mean both “people” and “state” because in Europe, there are no true ethnic peoples left. There are only states.

>>213094703
In fact, if you look at cultures like Tsujigiri(murder), Kirisutegomen(murder), Yobai(rape), and Ubasute(Abandoning parents), they seem very far from civilized countries.

Well, it was inevitable. Indians may have had a talent for art, but not for warfare. In the medieval period, they lost their homeland to relatively small groups of Muslim invaders during the Delhi Sultanate era. Along the way, they lost much of their native Hindu culture, which became deeply influencedeven overshadowed by Islamic customs.

The once open and expressive cultural attitude toward sexuality, which was treated as both art and ritual, gradually declined. What replaced it was a rigid, repressive version of Neo-Hinduism sterile, conservative, and far removed from the creative spirit that once defined ancient India

Language is ultimately a combination of writing and speaking. From this perspective, Korean is arguably the hardest language to speak.

It has several vowel sounds that don't even exist in English. On top of that, Korean has a wide range of speech levels and honorifics, such as formal and informal language, which add even more complexity to speaking.

However, when it comes to writing, Korean is relatively easy because it uses a phonetic alphabet (Hangul). Compared to Chinese characters, Hangul is far simpler and easier to learn.

So, to sum up: Korean writing is one of the easiest, In this sense, Korean may be easier overall than Chinese or Japanese, but speaking is hardest lang

>>212653707
Mesoamerica (where the Aztec, Maya, Zapotec, etc. lived) is culturally and geographically distinct from most of what we call North America — especially the U.S. and Canada.

Saying “most North American natives lived in Mesoamerica” is like saying “most Asians lived in India.”

It’s a category error

>>509721294
He never left. As you can see, his "spirit" persists in all of us....and over time...that spirit rises to the surface of our consciousness to the extent we face and think about all our challenges and seek true solutions. If you can remember him, he is there, and you are already that.
In the same way that a small ember from a great fire, is that same fire; and if that ember kindles another great fire, who will say which is which.

Losing side should gain more money, not the winning one